BAIL granted in spite of Wife blaming husband and in-laws for suicide. DELHI High Court

Wife committed suicide and left a note blaming the husband & in-laws. FIR is registered under sections 498A/306/34 IPC. State opposed the pre-arrest bail, but the Delhi High Court granted it. Just because wife says that the husband is responsible for her suicide, it is not proven that the husband abetted it, says HC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Bail Application No.3137/2005

Sanjay Dhillon …….. Petitioner through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Mr. Sumit Arora Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocates Vs State ……. Respondent through : Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, Advocate

Bail Application No.3201-06/2005
Krishana and Ors. …….. Petitioners through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Mr. Sumit Arora, Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocates Vs State ……. Respondent through : Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, Advocate

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog.
DATE OF DECISION: 26.09.2007.

FIR No. 134/2005 dated 17.11.2005 U/S: 498A/306/34 IPC; PS: Jaffarpur Kalan.

1. Rajesh (Wife) was married to Sanjay Dhillon (Husband) on 11.2.1997. Unfortunately, she committed suicide on 17.11.2005.
2. Sanjay Dhillon and his parents, brothers, sisters and brother in law seek pre-arrest bail in aforenoted FIR.
3. Rajesh (Wife) was in the house of her parents when she committed suicide. A suicide note was purportedly recovered from the house of her parents after she died. The suicide note is scribed in Devanagari scriptt. Signatures of Rajesh are appended in English.
4. As per opinion of the handwriting expert, whereas writing on the suicide note has been opined to be that of Rajesh (Wife), signatures in English of Rajesh have been opined as not tallying with the admitted writing of Rajesh (Wife) in English language.
5. In the Suicide Note, Rajesh (wife) has penned her thoughts as under:- “I do not want to live. Life has come to an end for me because of compulsions of some persons. I have tried my level best to find a home. But my in-laws which include my sisters-in-law, a husband of my sister-in-law namely Surender Kapur and my husband Sanjay have compelled me to embrace death. My world has ended. I went with hope to the women cell but even nothing happened there. I was compelled to abandon my child. In front of my eyes my world has collapsed. I have lost the will to live. Father please forgive me. Mother please forgive me. I just don’t want to live.”
6. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that sine qua non for the applicability of Section 306 IPC is abetment in the commission of suicide. Referring to Section 107 IPC learned counsel urges that abetment is complete when one or more of 3 acts envisaged by Section 107 IPC are committed. Firstly, if the person is instigated or a person engages in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing which results in commission of a offence and lastly when a person intentionally aids by an act or illegally omission the doing of an offence.
7. It is urged that assuming there is harassment and as a result of harassment the person harassed commits suicide, mere harassment by itself would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
8. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the language of the suicide note strongly opposes the grant of pre-arrest bail.
9. I need not note a catena of authorities on the point save and except a decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2002 (2) RCR Crl. 687 Sanju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. In paras 9 to 12 of the said decision, 3 judgments of the Supreme Court were noted and with reference to a suicide note, contents whereof as noted in para 14 of the judgment were as under:- (Fetch these details)
10. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:- “My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning”
11. This court, considering the defintion of ‘abetment’ under Section 107 IPC found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sutainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of the abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
12. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618: 2001 (4) RCR (Crl.) 537 (SC), this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go whereever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
    “A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences, were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offences of suicide should be found guilty.
13. Thus, case is made out to grant benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners for the reason the suicide note does not establish abetment. It merely establishes harassment.
14. Petition stands disposed of directing that in the event of being arrested by the IO, petitioners would be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO.
15. Needless to state, petitioners would join investigation as and when required by the IO