Merely Asking Someone To Retract Statement Would Not Amount To Provoking Them To Commit Suicide: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that that merely asking an individual to retract their statement by filing another affidavit cannot be considered as instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to commit suicide.

Justice Divyesh A Joshi observed, “Merely the accused asked the deceased to retract his version by filing another affidavit, would not in any manner be considered as an act to instigate, incite or provoking the deceased to commit suicide and if there was any threats and/or pressure upon the deceased to do a particular act, he could have taken appropriate recourse. The contents of the FIR indicate that the accused alleged to have goaded the deceased to make an affidavit denying his signature in a particular document, but had never intended or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.”

This observation came in an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code filed by one Parakramsinh Jadeja, who had been in custody since August 27, 2023, on charges of abetting the suicide of a watchman.

The advocate representing the applicant submitted that the incident in question occurred on August 9, 2023, followed by the filing of an FIR on the subsequent day, August 10, 2023. The applicant was then apprehended on August 27, 2023, and has been under judicial custody since. The advocate further submitted that now that the investigation has concluded and the chargesheet has been submitted, this current application for bail has been filed. It was pointed that the FIR implicated two accused individuals, with the second accused having already been addressed by this Court.

The advocate argued that the accusations against the applicant revolve around an ongoing dispute over ancestral property between the applicant and his brother. The deceased, who was employed as a Watchman on the premises of the applicant's brother, was allegedly named as a witness in an affidavit filed by the brother. Upon learning of this, the applicant purportedly threatened the deceased to retract his statement under the threat of dire consequences. Consequently, the deceased refrained from going to work initially but later resumed after a period of time.

The advocate contended that even if the allegations against the applicant were to be accepted as true for argument's sake, it cannot be reasonably construed that the applicant directly aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the advocate argued that the elements of Section 107 of the IPC, which pertain to abetment of a crime, were not applicable. Consequently, the advocate urged for the applicant's release on regular bail, citing both the circumstances of the case and the principle of legal parity, while suggesting the imposition of suitable conditions.

The APP representing the respondent-State vehemently opposed the granting of regular bail, citing the severity and nature of the offense at hand.

The APP contended that the applicant's name and involvement were explicitly outlined in the First Information Report (FIR). Moreover, it was pointed out that prior to the deceased's suicide, they had penned a suicide note explicitly mentioning the applicant. The note detailed how, due to threats allegedly issued by the applicant, the deceased intended to take their own life. The advocate emphasized that forensic analysis conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) confirmed the handwriting on the suicide note to be that of the deceased.

Furthermore, the APP highlighted the distinction between the roles of the co-accused, who happens to be the father-in-law of the applicant. While the co-accused was granted bail, it was argued that his involvement differed significantly from that of the applicant. The co-accused resides in a separate village located at a considerable distance, and the accusations against him primarily revolved around purported threats made via phone calls. As such, the APP asserted that the co-accused's role was distinct from that of the applicant and, therefore, urged against entertaining the present bail application.

After hearing the advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the Court pointed, “Section 107 of the IPC takes into consideration the instigation by any person to do an act, instigate - means to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.”

The Court noted that the contents of the FIR indicated that the accused alleged to have goaded the deceased to make an affidavit denying his signature in a particular document, but had never intended or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court while allowing the application held “In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie and taking into consideration the ratio enunciate by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant-accused.

Appearance:Mr Ashish M Dagli(2203) For The Applicant(S) No. 1Mr Pp Majmudar(5284) For The Respondent(S) No. 1

Mr Lb Dabhi App For The Respondent(S) No. 1

Case No.: R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 4373 Of 2024 (For Regular Bail - After Chargesheet)

Case Title: Parakramsinh Hathubha @ Hathisinh Jadeja Vs State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 34

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement