Prosecution Must Satisfy Section 107 Requirements To Prove An Offence Under Section 306 Of IPC: Gujarat High Court

Background

It was the Prosecution's case that the Respondent-Accused had abetted the suicide of the victim by beating and hurling caste abuse at the victim for non-payment of a certain sum of money. Thereafter, the Complainant, who found the victim Rajubhai hanging from the fan, filed an FIR with the Bagasara Police Station under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R) 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST Act').

The Prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced documentary evidence to contend that it was due to the harassment of the victim by the Accused persons and threats of killing his acquaintance that the victim committed suicide. The Prosecution also relied on the Medical Officer's report that the victim died due to suffocation in the respiratory retract which was not a natural death. Therefore, by acquitting the Accused, the Trial Court committed error in granting the benefit of doubt.

Judgement

The Bench observed that the complaint of the Complainant was not trustworthy since there was no material which clearly implicated the Accused. Further, the witness Hareshbhai Khitoliya who allegedly received a death threat from the Accused, did not present this version in the appeals. He also did not confirm that the victim was harassed for a sum of INR 500 by the Accused persons or that he was beaten by them. On further examination, the Bench pointed out that the deposition of Dr Prakash Savaliya did not establish any external injury or kick or first blows on the body of the victim and therefore, the veracity of the assault was doubtful. The brother of victim also did not have any personal knowledge of the alleged physical abuse.

The Court opined that in order to prove an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Prosecution must first satisfy the ingredients under section 107 which pertains to instigation. Numerous judgements such as Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. [2002 5 SCC 371] have considered the word 'instigate' in detail where the victim was verbally abused and told to 'go and die':n 2002 5 SCC 371@ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.

"Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25.07.1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27.07.1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25.07.1998."Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25.07.1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27.07.1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25.07.1998

Similarly, in S.S. Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan, it was observed:S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."

The Bench also turned to Rajiv Thapar vs Madan Lal Kapur, where a four-step guideline was propounded for quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC:

1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable?
2. Whether the material relied upon by the Accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the Accused i.e, the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint?
3. whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
4. whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

Keeping in view these precedents and the factual matrix of the case, the Court opined that the story of the Complainant did not inspire the Court's confidence and on re-appreciation of the evidence, the Prosecution has failed miserably to provide any ingredients of Section 306, 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC or under provisions of the SC/ST Act, as well.

Additionally, the Court referred to Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225) to affirm that the Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction and this is a cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence. (1996) 9 SCC 225) Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat

In Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena @ Tailor Seena vs State of Karnataka, [2021 (15) SCALE Pg.184], the Supreme Court had noted:2021 (15) SCALE Pg. 184Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena @ Tailor Seena V/s. State of Karnataka

"When the trial Court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence."

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala

Case No.: R/CR.MA/20079/2021 R/CR.MA/20079/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 10