S.306 IPC | Words Uttered In Fit Of Anger Sans Intention Not Instigation/ Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has clarified in respect of Section 306 of IPC that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot amount to 'instigation.' Therefore, if in the instant case, the Accused/Applicant had uttered 'you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die', then it would not...
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has clarified in respect of Section 306 of IPC that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot amount to 'instigation.'
Therefore, if in the instant case, the Accused/Applicant had uttered 'you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die', then it would not constitute instigation as u/s 306.
These observations were made in connection with a Section 482 application challenging the FIR against the Accused for offences u/s 306 and 114 of IPC.
The FIR was filed by the widow of the deceased (Complainant) who was alleging that the Accused had told her husband that he will not clear his alleged dues, even if he dies. He further told the husband that he can do whatever he likes and can die. Thereafter, the Complainant and her husband had visited persons owing them the outstanding amount and they refused to repay the amount.
The Complainant alleged that a whatsapp group by the name of 'Alvida' was created by her husband and in that group there were three persons who used to work with her husband and owed him Rs. 3.5 crores. Being fed up with the non-payment of the outstanding amount, the husband and the Complainant consumed poison but she survived. The instant FIR was filed against 12 persons.
The two Applicants opposed the allegations by relying on Sanju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the Apex Court had held that there must be mens rea for the offence to constitute 'instigation.' Words uttered in anger or emotion without intending the consequences cannot amount to instigation. Further, out of 12 accused, 3 persons had settled the disputes with the party and the FIR was quashed qua them.
Consequently, the Single Judge Bench questioned how the role of the instant Applicants was different from those Accused against whom the FIR was quashed. To this, it was stated that the instant Applicants had uttered 'do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die.'
Perusing the facts of the case, the High Court turned to the Sanju judgment and emphasized:
"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional."
Bearing in mind this explanation by the Apex Court, the High Court affirmed that the case of the Applicant was squarely covered by the Sanju judgment.
As a result, the High Court quashed the FIR qua both Applicants.
Case Title: RAMESH BABUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 362