2019 (3) TMI 2090 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates suicide abetment charges after finding sufficient evidence of provocation and fraudulent loan activities

The SC set aside the HC's order discharging the accused in a suicide abetment case. The deceased had consumed poison and made a dying declaration. The HC ... Death of victim by consuming poison (suicide) - recording of dying declaration - Respondent is alleged to have caused the deceased to be terminated from employment and also allegedly caused her landlord to oust her from possession - exercise of revisional jurisdiction Under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. HELD THAT:- The High Court had held that the lower court had erred in framing charges in the present case as there was no evidence with regard to provocation, incitement or encouragement which would lead to the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is of relevance to refer to certain judgments of this Court. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2009 (8) TMI 1284 - SUPREME COURT], the Appellant and two other individuals were charged Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It had been alleged that the Appellant and the other Accused persons had forcibly compelled the deceased to sign a settlement giving up a part of his share in the profits from the sale of certain land. This led to a dispute and as a result of the mental harassment suffered by the deceased, he committed suicide. The Court affirmed the framing of charges by the trial court. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record to uphold the order framing charges of the Trial Court. The discharge of the Accused was not justified. The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of the investigation. The material indicates that several complaints were filed by the deceased. The last of them was filed a few days before the suicide. It is alleged that the Respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs through fraudulent means in the name of the deceased and an altercation took place between him and the deceased in that regard. Moreover, the Respondent is alleged to have got the deceased evicted from a rented house as well as terminated from her employment at Central Bank. There is a dying declaration. The impugned judgement is set aside - appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in discharging the Respondent from charges framed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.The scope and limits of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court at the stage of framing charges, especially concerning the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.The applicability and sufficiency of evidence, including the dying declaration and investigation material, to prima facie establish the offence of abetment of suicide and atrocity under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.The legal test to be applied at the stage of framing charges versus the test for conviction, and the extent to which the court can scrutinize evidence at this stage.The interpretation of the ingredients of abetment of suicide, particularly the requirement of provocation, incitement, or encouragement by the accused.Issue-wise detailed analysis:1. Correctness of High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPCThe Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, which allows a higher court to call for and examine records of an inferior court to satisfy itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceeding or order. The Court emphasized that this jurisdiction is limited and should not be exercised routinely or against interlocutory orders. The revisional power is invoked only when there is a well-founded error, such as gross illegality, no evidence, or arbitrary exercise of discretion.The Court relied on the precedent laid down in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which clarified that at the stage of framing charges, the court's role is limited to determining whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence. The Court should not conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or decide the likelihood of conviction. It must avoid throttling prosecution prematurely unless there is a patent miscarriage of justice.Further, in State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, the Court reiterated that at the charge framing stage, the court is to form an opinion on whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused committed the offence, not to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.The High Court's discharge order was scrutinized against these principles.2. Sufficiency of evidence and dying declaration to frame charges under Section 306 IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) ActThe facts revealed that the deceased consumed poison and died shortly thereafter. Her dying declaration stated that she consumed poison because she was unable to get a job due to the Respondent's harassment, including molestation and causing her termination from employment. The investigation revealed multiple complaints by the deceased against the Respondent, including allegations of forgery of signature to obtain a loan, non-payment of the loan, eviction from rented premises, and termination from employment.The Court noted that the FIR and charge-sheet contained these allegations, which prima facie disclosed the ingredients of abetment of suicide and atrocity under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.The High Court had discharged the Respondent on the ground that there was no evidence of provocation, incitement, or encouragement to commit suicide. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed as it ignored the material on record including the dying declaration and the complaints lodged by the deceased.3. Legal test for abetment of suicide and application to factsThe Court referred to the principles enunciated in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), which laid down the ingredients for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The offence requires that the accused by acts or a continued course of conduct creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide, with the presence of mens rea to provoke or encourage the act.The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must consider whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the offence. It is not the stage to decide the guilt conclusively.Applying this to the facts, the Court held that the allegations of harassment, forgery, termination from employment, and eviction, coupled with the dying declaration, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide.4. Treatment of competing arguments regarding the FIR and scope of evidence at charge framingThe Respondent's counsel argued that the FIR only mentioned termination from employment and did not allege provocation or incitement sufficient to sustain abetment charges. The High Court accepted this view and discharged the Respondent.The Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation, pointing out that the investigation revealed additional material beyond the FIR, including multiple complaints and the dying declaration. The Court held that the FIR is not the sole document to be considered and that the material on record must be read holistically.The Court also reiterated that the court at the charge framing stage is not to weigh evidence or assess credibility but to see if the allegations prima facie disclose the offence.5. Principles governing discharge of accused at charge framing stageThe Court reiterated the principles from Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, which require the court to ascertain if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or presuming the offence has been committed. The test is not for conviction but for putting the accused on trial.The Court found that the High Court failed to apply these tests correctly and erroneously discharged the Respondent.6. Conclusion on the correctness of the High Court's discharge orderThe Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order discharging the Respondent was legally unsustainable. The material on record, including the dying declaration and complaints, prima facie established the offence, and the discharge was not justified. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the charges framed by the trial court.The Court clarified that this judgment does not affect the merits of the trial, which will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts and principles:'Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.''The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.''Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.''At the stage of framing of charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the Accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt.''In order to prove that the Accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct... and (ii) that the Accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.''The court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for 'presuming' that the Accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.''The High Court did not at all apply the relevant test, namely, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused or whether there is ground for presuming that the Accused has committed an offence.'In sum, the Court established that at the charge framing stage, the court must consider the entirety of material on record to determine if the allegations prima facie disclose an offence, and should not discharge the accused unless the allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable. The presence of a dying declaration and multiple complaints alleging harassment and coercion were sufficient to sustain the charges of abetment of suicide and atrocity under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, and the High Court erred in discharging the accused.