The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed an abetment to suicide FIR against the relatives of a man whose wife ended her life, noting that the allegations were “sweeping in nature”.
The father of the deceased, in the FIR against the man identified as Sayyed Lal Amir Sayyed and his relatives, said his daughter got married in 2011. The FIR stated that after two months of marriage, the woman’s father-in-law brought her back to her father’s home, alleging that she was not working properly at home and back-answering. The deceased’s father claimed that his daughter had told him about her husband getting drunk every day and abusing her. Further, it was also stated that the in-laws subjected her to ill-treatment because she did not bring dowry of Rs 50,000.
It was further alleged that the husband’s relatives visited the deceased’s matrimonial home and said he ‘could have gotten a better girl’ and if the amount of Rs 50,000 was not met, the woman should be driven out of the house.
Subsequently, when the woman was driven out of the house, she hanged herself and an FIR was registered.
The advocate for the applicants argued that the allegations were petty and general in nature. He informed the court that there was no demand, ill-treatment, or taunting nor was there any physical or mental ill-treatment. He submitted that the FIR was an attempt to falsely implicate the man and his parents after more than 6-7 years of marriage. Further, he argued that there was no abetment or harassment which was of such nature that would compel the deceased to die by suicide.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application and argued that the deceased regularly informed her father about ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws. He also submitted that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and that the husband suspected her character. He submitted that the continuous demand of Rs 50,000 and subsequent ill-treatment as she failed to bring the money led her to take her own life.
During the admission stage, the court comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase expressed its inclination to not grant relief to the husband and his parents after which the application for quashing FIR against the husband and his parents was withdrawn.
With regard to the application for quashing FIR against the relatives, the court said that the allegations were sweeping in nature and the alleged utterance is attributed to all in chorus. Further, it was not mentioned in the FIR exactly when the relatives visited the matrimonial house. The FIR only reveals that the relatives came to the house and raised quarrels by giving a monotonous statement without specifying the details.
The court said, “To attribute abetment, in our considered opinion, the exact time and date of visit of such applicants was essential, more particularly, to connect them to suicidal hanging. Proximity of their visit to the house of deceased and alleged suicide was very crucial to hold them liable for the offence of abetment of suicide. What exactly happened and who played which role on the date of incident is conspicuously missing from FIR as well as statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C”
While highlighting the essentials of the offense under Section 306 of the IPC, the court said continuous harassment, instigation, and abetment coupled with ‘mens rea’ (criminal intent) is not surfacing from the record.
The order reads: “Likewise even as regards to commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, there is solitary incident alleging that they visited house of husband and deceased and said that accused husband could have been married to a better girl and she should be asked to bring money. The very essential for attracting offence under Section 306 of IPC i.e., continuous harassment, instigation, abetment coupled with mens rea is not surfacing from the record.”
The high court, while granting relief to the relatives, said:“Making them face trial with such quality and nature of evidence in our considered opinion, would amount to subjecting them to injustice. It is a clear abuse of process of law only as against them. For ends of justice to meet, therefore, we are inclined to grant relief to applicant Nos.4 to 7. The cumulative effect of available material on record impels us to extend the relief sought by them”.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment