Tag Archives: suicide

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

Army jawan tries to kill wife, attempt suicide in Pune, Express News Service | Pune

Army jawan tries to kill wife, attempt suicide in Pune: Police

“We are trying to ascertain the sequence of events leading to the incident and the reasons behind it. The soldier is currently posted in Jammu and Kashmir and had come home on leave,” the inspector said.

By: Express News Service | Pune | Updated: May 24, 2020 1:40:39 pm

pune city news, Vishrantwadi army jawan tries to kill wife, Vishrantwadi army wife murder, Vishrantwadi

A 33-year-old Army jawan on Sunday allegedly tried to kill his wife and then attempt suicide in in Pune’s Vishrantwadi area, police said. Both the husband and wife sustained serious injuries and are undergoing treatment at a hospital, they added.

As per preliminary information, the Army personnel of Naik rank is currently posted in Jammu and Kashmir with a Rashtriya Rifles battalion and had come home a few days ago. The incident took place around 4.30 am on Sunday.

Inspector Arun Avhad of Vishrantwadi police station said, “Following a fight, the husband attacked the wife with a knife. He then started harming himself with the knife on his neck. Some of their relatives, who stay nearby, called the police and subsequently, an ambulance was called. The wife suffered multiple knife injuries on her body. Both are being treated at a hospital and are in a serious condition.”

“We are trying to ascertain the sequence of events leading to the incident and the reasons behind it. The soldier is currently posted in Jammu and Kashmir and had come home on leave,” the cop added.

source

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune

Harassment alone cannot constitute abetment or instigation (for suicide). Husband & in-laws exonerated in ipc306 ipc34. Raj HC


Image result for rajasthan HC images

//// Suffice it to state that for the offence of abetment to suicide if it is the case of the prosecution that the victim was instigated to commit suicide on account of being troubled then harassment has to be to such an extent that she was left with no option other than to kill herself, the test of proximity between the date when the victim took the extreme step and trouble inducing incitement to do the act has to be established. Harassment by itself cannot constitute abetment or instigation. Instigation means active stimulus.

In the instant case, none has established. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC thus cannot be sustained. ///

This case once again proves that jail sentence IF ANY in a 498a cases is ONLY when the wife is DEAD and even there IF the abetment is NOT proven, then husband and family are exonerated from the suicide per se

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Bhagirath And Ors vs State on 6 February, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.

Criminal Appeal No. 898/2015

  1. Bhagirath S/o Bhau Ram by caste Jat
  2. Bhau Ram S/o Hanuwata Ram, by caste Jat
  3. Smt.Shanti Devi W/o Bhau Ram, by caste Jat All Resident of Bodwa, P.S.Kuchera, district Nagaur. —-Appellants

Versus State of Rajasthan —-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Nishant Bora with Ms.Chhavi Kalla

For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, PP

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

Judgment 06/02/2019

  1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
  2. Bhagirath and his parents Bhau Ram and Shanti Devi have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306/34, 498-A/34 and 201 IPC. For the offence of abetment to commit suicide they have been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of seven years and to pay fine in sum of ?5000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo SI for two years and pay fine in sum of ?2000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo SI for one year and pay fine in sum of ?1000/-, in default to undergo SI for one month. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
  3. Bhagirath has already undergone a sentence of 6 years 8 months and 17 days as on 24.1.2019. His parents have undergone a sentence of 11 months and are on bail. Bhagirath is still in jail.
  4. It is the case of the prosecution that Bhagirath’s wife named Santosh committed suicide in her matrimonial house on 6.5.2012. Since it is not in dispute that Santosh poured kerosene oil on herself and set herself on fire resulting in extensive burn injuries and due to shock caused thereby she died, I note only such evidence which would be relevant to sustain the charge for having abetted Santosh’s suicide. Abetment being in the form of instigation by demanding dowry that Santosh was left with no alternative but to end her life.
  5. For the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, I note that there is evidence of the place where victim set herself on fire was tampered with, in that, using cow-dung and mud an attempt was made to re-plaster the place.
  6. I note the testimony of the parents and relatives of Santosh on the issue of dowry demand and harassment.
  7. PW-2 Mohan Ram, a cousin of Santosh deposed that marriage of Santosh was solemnized eight years back. She joined company of her husband after two years of the marriage. After a year or two of joining her husband in her matrimonial house, his sister was troubled on account of dowry. Two children were born to Santosh. On the 4th of the month when his sister died the ceremony of the maternal-uncle of the girl to give gifts to her was held and for which his sister had come to the parental house. On the 5th his sister returned to her matrimonial house.
  8. The next witness is PW-6 Chhoti Devi, the mother of Santosh. She deposed that her daughter was married to Bhagirath and at the time of the marriage dowry was given in sum of ?2.25 lacs as also jewellery. Immediately after the marriage dowry demands were raised. ?3 lacs and a motor-cycle were demanded. On 4th her daughter had come to parental house for the ceremony of “Mayara”. Santosh told her that two days prior her in-laws had broken her mobile phone. Santosh returned to her matrimonial house on the 5th.
  9. PW-8 Ram Kishore, another cousin of Santosh deposed that after the marriage his sister was harassed on account of dowry demand. A motor-cycle and ?1 lac were demanded.
  10. PW-12 Budharam, the father of Santosh deposed that his daughter was married eight years back and at the time of marriage he gave ?2 lacs and jewellery. The in-laws demanded a motor-cycle and ?3 lacs. She was harassed for said reason. On 4 th his daughter had come to their house for the ceremony of “Mayara”.
  11. PW-17 Ramlal, the brother of Santosh also deposed that his sister was married eight years back and joined company of her husband after two years of the marriage. On account of demand of a motor-cycle and ?75,000/- his sister was being harassed by her in-laws.
  12. PW-20 Punaram, a cousin of Santosh also deposed that Santosh was married 7-8 years ago and joined company of her husband after two years. On account of dowry demand of ?75,000/- his sister used to be troubled by her in-laws. After the ceremony of “Mayara” his sister returned to the house of her in- laws on 5th and died on the 6th.
  13. PW-24 Leela Devi, a relative of Santosh deposed that Santosh was troubled by her in-laws and used to complain her that reason thereof was her parents giving less dowry.
  14. From a perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it emerges that witnesses have spoken in the plural i.e. in-laws demanding dowry without specifying whether it was the husband or the mother-in-law or the father-in-law.
  15. Relevant would it be to highlight that apart from there being a consistent stand that a motor cycle was demanded, the money demand varies between ?75,000/- to ?3 lacs. The witnesses have not stated the day or even the month when the dowry was demanded and on this aspect the learned Judge convicting the appellants has held that it would be difficult for the witnesses to remember the dates when dowry was demanded.
  16. Suffice it to state that for the offence of abetment to suicide if it is the case of the prosecution that the victim was instigated to commit suicide on account of being troubled then harassment has to be to such an extent that she was left with no option other than to kill herself, the test of proximity between the date when the victim took the extreme step and trouble inducing incitement to do the act has to be established. Harassment by itself cannot constitute abetment or instigation. Instigation means active stimulus.
  17. In the instant case, none has established. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC thus cannot be sustained.
  18. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute the offence concerning plastering of place of the crime using cow-dung and mud and the presence of the appellants in the house. Effectively, the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC is not challenged.
  19. No serious attempt has been made to question the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC but the prayer made is that both parents Bhau Ram and Shanti Devi be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period which they have already undergone, which is 11 months. As regards Bhagirath, he has already undergone a sentence much beyond two years.
  20. The appeal is disposed of acquitting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC.
  21. The appellants are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 IPC and 201 IPC. For both offences I inflict sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by both parents Bhau Ram and Shanti Devi. Sentence of two years imposed upon Bhagirath is maintained. He has already undergone a sentence much beyond two years.
  22. Bhau Ram and Shanti Devi have been admitted to bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are therefore discharged.
  23. Bhagirath is directed to be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

5-Parmar/-

Domestic dispute claims life of NSG commando !! Great loss to this nation and the family

NSG commando ‘kills self’ after shooting wife, sister-in-law at Manesar campus 

The commando has been identified as Jitender Singh from Kanpur and family dispute seems to be the cause of the incident, police said. 

Updated: Dec 06, 2017 14:33:19

By Ipsita Pati

The NSG commando, who shot at his wife and sister-in-law, was on deputation from the Border Security Force. (Parveen Kumar/HT Photo)

A 34-year-old National Security Guard (NSG) commando allegedly committed suicide after shooting his wife and sister-in-law in an apparent fit of rage at his residence inside the elite counter-terrorism squad’s Manesar campus in Haryana on Tuesday. Police officials said they suspect familial discord caused the incident.

Assistant sub-inspector Jitender Singh used his MP5 service submachine gun to allegedly shoot his 30-year-old wife and 17-year-old sister-in-law, both of whom are critically wounded, before shooting himself, the police said. Singh’s body has been sent for post-mortem. 

Singh, who had been in service since 2002, hails from Kanpur and was residing in the NSG camp in Manesar for the past two years. He was posted in NSG on deputation from Border Security Force.

The incident took place at 9am on Tuesday. The neighbours reported the incident to police after they heard the gunshots and rushed to his house.

The deceased’s wife, Guddan, and sister-in-law, Kushboo, were admitted to Rockland Hospital in Manesar. Singh’s two children — an eight-year-old girl and two-year-old boy — are safe, police said. The children are being looked after by their neighbours.

“We are investigating the matter. The price reason for the incident is not known as of now. The cause behind the shooting seems to be a dispute in the family. However, we are investigating all angles,” said Dharamveer Singh, ACP, Gurgaon police, Manesar.

The case is currently with the Manesar police station and investigation is being conducted under Section 144 of CrPC.

“We have not yet filed any FIR. We are waiting for the victims’ statements. The family members have been informed and are on their way. Singh’s wife was shot in her lungs, while his sister-in-law received bullet on her abdomen,” said Rahul Dev, SHO, Manesar police station.

An NSG spokesperson said, “Gurgaon police is conducting the probe and we are providing them all required information .”

Man commits suicide, wife booked | Chandigarh News – Times of India

Man commits suicide, wife booked

Ludhiana: Six months after marriage, a 24-year-old man committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan at his house in New Shivpuri area. The police have recovered a suicide note after in which the man, Inderjit Singh, has blamed his wife, mother-in-law and her relatives for taking the extreme step.

Police have booked Inderjit’s wife Jyoti, mother-in-law Sarabjit Singh, her uncle and aunt under charges of abetment to suicide.

According to Inderjit’s relatives, his in-laws were pressurizing him to shift with them, but Inderjit wanted to stay with his family. This had caused strain relations between Inderjit and Jyoti.

Monu, brother of Inderjit, said he tried to convince Jyoti, but failed.

Inspector Rajwant Singh, SHO, Daresi police station, said the police have recovered a suicide note from the spot in which Inderjit has named his wife Jyoti, mother-in-law and others. The police have registered a case against all four accused under section of 306 (abatement to suicide) of IPC in this matter.

— Read on

m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/66672168.cms