0

Mere Mention in Suicide Note Insufficient for Abetment Charge: Supreme Court.

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , ,

Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1196/2018).

Date: February 22, 2024.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. C.T. Ravikumar, J. Rajesh Bindal.

Facts of the Case:

The case concerns the death by suicide of Brijesh Chandra, father of the appellant Vikas Chandra. Brijesh Chandra was a retired military man working as a security guard at Mandi Samiti, Puwaya. The respondent Ram Babu Sharma was the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti at the time.

According to the complaint filed by Vikas Chandra, his father’s salary from March 2004 to August 2004 and September 2004 onwards was not paid. On October 12, 2004, when Brijesh Chandra requested the release of his salary, Ram Babu Sharma allegedly told him: “I will see that how will you get your salary and who will help you in getting your salary, I will bring out your military-man-ship and either you die or your children, but I do not care, get out of here, why you do not take poison”.

On October 23, 2004, Brijesh Chandra committed suicide by consuming poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working at the time. He left a suicide note allegedly attributing responsibility for his suicide to Ram Babu Sharma.

Initially, the complainant approached the court of the Judicial Magistrate, but the complaint was not forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The matter was taken up in revision and eventually to the High Court. Based on the High Court’s orders, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide.

After investigation, the police filed a closure report. The Magistrate did not accept this report and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC based on a protest petition filed by the complainant. Subsequently, the Magistrate issued summons to Ram Babu Sharma to face trial for the offense under Section 306 IPC.

Ram Babu Sharma challenged this summons order in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the summons order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in quashing the summons issued against the respondent?

Whether the High Court exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC?

Whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to issue summons for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?

Legal Provisions:

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 306 IPC – Abetment of suicide.
  • Section 107 IPC – Abetment.

  1. Code of Criminal Procedure:
  • Section 156(3) CrPC – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.
  • Section 173(2) CrPC – Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
  • Section 190 CrPC – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
  • Section 202 CrPC – Postponement of issue of process.
  • Section 204 CrPC – Issue of process.
  • Section 482 CrPC – Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

Contentions of petitioners:

The appellant strongly argued that the High Court had committed a grave error in law by quashing the summons issued against the respondent. They contended that the Magistrate’s decision to issue summons was based on sufficient prima facie evidence and should not have been interfered with by the High Court. The appellant asserted that the High Court had exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC. They argued that the High Court’s power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a clear abuse of the process of law.

The appellant maintained that there was ample prima facie evidence to justify the issuance of summons for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

They pointed to the following elements:

  • The alleged threatening and instigative remarks made by the respondent on October 12, 2004.
  • The non-payment of salary, which they argued created circumstances that led to the suicide.
  • The suicide notes mentioning the respondent’s name and attributing responsibility to him.

The appellant argued that given the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of prima facie evidence, the matter deserved a full trial. They contended that quashing the summons at this stage would prevent a proper investigation into the circumstances of Brijesh Chandra’s death.

The appellant argued for a broader interpretation of the suicide note, suggesting that even if it didn’t explicitly mention the October 12 incident, the overall content implied abetment by the respondent.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents argued that the summoning order was issued without satisfying the grounds required under law. They contended that mere mention of a name in a suicide note does not automatically amount to abetment of suicide. They argued that the Magistrate’s order did not reflect proper application of mind to form an opinion regarding sufficient basis for proceeding against the respondent. They pointed out that the order lacked detailed reasoning for issuing the summons. The respondents emphasized that there was no material suggesting instigation by the respondent in the suicide note. They argued that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or creation of circumstances that left no option but suicide. They pointed out the significant time gap (11 days) between the alleged instigation and the suicide, arguing that this weakened any case for abetment. They also contended that there was no evidence of a continued course of conduct that could be seen as abetment.

The respondents highlighted that the alleged incident of October 12, 2004, which formed the basis of the complaint, was not mentioned in the suicide note. They argued that if this incident was indeed the trigger for the suicide, it would have been mentioned. They further argued that allowing the case to proceed based on such flimsy evidence would amount to misuse of the criminal process and cause undue harassment to the respondent. They contended that the High Court’s use of power under Section 482 CrPC was justified to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Analysis of the judgement:

In its judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the summons order. The Court reaffirmed that while a Magistrate has the power to issue summons even after a closure report is filed by the police, this power must be exercised judiciously. It emphasized that issuing summons is a serious matter that affects an individual’s dignity and reputation, and therefore should not be done mechanically but only upon satisfaction of sufficient grounds for proceeding.

The Court clarified that for an offense under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC, with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned. In this case, the Court found no explicit or implicit reference in the suicide note to the alleged incident of October 12, 2004, or any instigation by the respondent. The significant time gap of 11 days between the alleged instigation and the suicide further weakened the case for abetment. The Court held that the mere statement in the suicide note that the respondent would be responsible for the suicide was not sufficient ground to issue summons for an offense under Section 306 IPC.

The judgement emphasized the need for careful judicial scrutiny before issuing summons in criminal cases, serving as a safeguard against arbitrary or mechanical issuance of summons. The Court’s clarification on the ingredients of abetment of suicide is vital, stressing that specific abetment with the intention to bring about the suicide is necessary, and mere attribution of responsibility in a suicide note is not sufficient.

The Court’s consideration of the lack of proximity between the alleged instigation and the suicide, as well as the absence of a continued course of conduct, as factors weakening the case for abetment, provides valuable guidance for similar cases. The judgment also offers insights into how suicide notes should be appreciated in the context of abetment charges, suggesting that courts should look for specific allegations and material of a definite nature, not merely inferences.

Conclusion

The decision serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise their powers judiciously, especially in cases involving serious charges like abetment of suicide. It also provides guidance on how to appreciate evidence, particularly suicide notes, in such cases.

 

Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.


Click here to read the Judgement.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Indigency Status Misjudged: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order; Urges Quick Appeal Decision.

Blog , , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.

CASE NUMBER – (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 457)

DATED ON – 27.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Sanjay Karol

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, who was the original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) & 10th (Adhoc) Addl. District Court Jude, Jamnagar] in M.A.C.P.No.255 of 2011, was injured in an accident on 4th July 2010, while riding pillion on a bike, which was hit by a truck. Having sustained injuries, she was admitted for medical treatment at a hospital for a period of fourteen days and subsequently she underwent plastic surgery. At the time of the accident, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but, post the accident, she sustained permanent disablement, and hence had not been able to work thereafter. A claim was filed for Rs.10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs. The Tribunal vide Award dated 17th October 2016, awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,745/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied thereby, the claimant-appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of Regular First Appeal No.2611/2017. Misc. Civil Application No.3/2018 was filed therein by which the claimantappellant prayed for permission to file the said First Appeal as an indigent person. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2018 dismissed the Misc. Civil Application

 

ISSUES

Whether the High Court of Gujarat had erred in it’s judgement and the Appellant should be recognized as an Indigent Person.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Order XLIV Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with determining the financial status of someone seeking to appeal as an indigent person.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The High Court of Gujarat whose order has been impugned stated that “the applicant– appellant cannot be considered to be indigent person and therefore, he has to pay court fees first. The Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that, till date, no amount is received by the applicant. It is open for the applicant to pursue the said remedy before appropriate forum. Present application cannot be entertained.” The Hon’ble  Supreme Court upon viewing this chose to first refer to one of it’sprevious judgements, where the definition of an Indigent Person was prescribed, “A person may proceed as poor person only after a court is satisfied that he or she is unable to prosecute the suit and pay the costs and expenses. A person is indigent if the payment of fees would deprive one of basic living expenses, or if the person is in a state of impoverishment that substantially and effectively impairs or prevents the pursuit of a court remedy.” The ground, upon which the claimant-appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rejected, was that she had received compensation by way of the Award of the Tribunal, and therefore, she was not indigent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found this observation to be belied by the impugned order itself as the learned Single Judge had recorded the submission of the counsel for the claimant-appellant that no money stood paid to her at that point in time. So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby. And thereby, held that the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application. They further viewed Order XLIV Rule 3(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where it states that the inquiry into the question whether or not he is an indigent person shall be made by the Appellate Court. And noted that The Appellate Court, in accordance with the above, did not conduct any inquiry. The same was necessitated since nothing on record speaks of the claimant-appellant having filed the claim before the learned Tribunal as an indigent person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that she had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent. And second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described above, was not met , therefore, held that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside, and allowed the Appeal. They also stated that since the Award was given in 2016, and the appeal to be recognized as an Indigent was rejected in 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court instructed the High Court that the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant be decided expeditiously, and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

The Supreme Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party.

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5569-5570 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1717-1718 of 2020)

Dated on: 30th April 2024

Quorum: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

FACTS OF THE CASE

A recent case, outlined in the judgment, underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly concerning the substitution of legal representatives in pending cases.

The case revolves around a civil suit concerning a property dispute in Bihar. Swami Shivdharmanand was one of the defendants in the suit. After his demise, the question arose regarding the substitution of his legal representative in the ongoing second appeal before the Patna High Court.

Two individuals, Swami Triyoganand and Swami Satyanand, claimed to be the rightful successors to Swami Shivdharmanand’s position. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives. However, this decision was challenged, leading to a remand by the Supreme Court for the High Court to reconsider the matter.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court upheld Swami Satyanand as the legal representative, dismissing the claim of Swami Triyoganand. Dissatisfied with this decision, Swami Vedvyasanand, who claimed through Swami Triyoganand, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized the procedural nuances involved in determining legal representation. While the substitution of legal representatives is crucial for the continuity of legal proceedings, it does not confer any substantive rights. Instead, it merely allows representation of the deceased’s estate in ongoing litigation.

The Court referred to Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates the court to determine the legal representative of a deceased party. Moreover, the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the appellate court to refer the matter to a subordinate court for factual inquiry, whose findings are then considered by the appellate court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj, the appellant, contested the order of the High Court, which substituted Swami Satyanand as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal. The appellant, through detailed contentions, argued that the High Court’s decision to reject his substitution application and uphold Swami Satyanand’s representation was procedurally flawed.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the legal provisions governing the substitution of parties upon the death of a litigant. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process, the Court highlighted the limited purpose of substitution, which is to ensure the continuity of proceedings, rather than conferring any substantive rights.

Citing the precedent set in Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, the Court reiterated that the determination of legal representation is crucial for the proper adjudication of the case. However, this determination does not grant any proprietary rights to the substituted party.

The Court noted the erroneous interpretation of Order 22 Rule 5 by the High Court and criticized its failure to consider the objections raised against the Trial Court’s report. Additionally, the Court clarified that the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the Appellate Court to consider the findings of the subordinate court while making an independent decision on substitution.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents, claiming to be successors to the deceased Swami Shivdharmanand, sought substitution in the pending appeal. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives, leading to subsequent legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s intervention was sought to clarify the correct procedure for determining legal representation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC reads as follows: Determination of question as to legal representative. — Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court.

Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.

ISSUE –

  • The primary issue revolved around the correct procedure for substituting legal representatives in a pending appeal, particularly concerning conflicting claims.
  • Whether the High Court adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) while determining legal representation.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the procedural lapses in the High Court’s decision-making process. It emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties to present their claims.

The Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party. It underscored the discretionary power of the Appellate Court to consider evidence and objections before making a conclusive decision on substitution.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It reiterated the procedural lapses observed and emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions. The Court clarified that its decision pertained solely to procedural irregularities and refrained from opining on the substantive merits of the claims.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

1

“Supreme Court Affirms High Court Ruling: Land Acquisition Appeal Dismissed on Grounds of Time Bar and Lack of Merit”

Blog, Supreme court , , 1

Case Title – Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (La)

Case Number – Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 Of 2018

Order Number – 8th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (La), the facts revolve around a land acquisition dispute in a village named Gandluru, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. In this case, a reference was filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act when a dispute arose involving 16 claimants being disappointed with the compensation offered to them. An appeal was filed to revert the decision of the reference by the second surviving daughter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) who was the claimant No.11 in the said case. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on September 24,1999 to condone a delay of 5659 days in filing the proffered appeal. The decision was negligent and lacked procedural review. Initially, the case was instituted as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the petitioners to challenge the decision of the High Court to dismiss the proffered appeal. After a substantial period, more than 6 years later, an appeal was premeditated to be filed in the High Court under Section 54 of the L.O.A. Out of the original 16 claimants, only those aligned with the claimant No.11 showed keen engrossment in challenging the preceding decision of reference, whereas the rest of the claimants opted not to take any action or initiate any independent appeals. The legal heir of claimant No.11 discovered the fact that the appeal delayed by a period of 5659 days was due to a dismissal of reference in 1999. A prompt appeal was filed justifying the delay. The condonation of delay in instituting the appeal beyond the prescribed time of limitation was declined by the High Court and the same was reasoned as time-barred in the order dated 18.01.2017. The petitioners contested the ruling of the High Court to dismiss the appeal stating it as time-barred which revolves around a dispute concerning the condonation of delay in instituting an appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

  1. The Petitioner, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compensation provided to them for the land acquisition was inadequate and significantly lower than the market value of the land.
  2. The Petitioner through their counsel, in the said case contented that the method used for valuation was incorrect and that the relevant documents were not considered before conducting the valuation of the land.
  3. The Petitioner through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay of condonation was due to the dismissal of reference and that the LR lacked proper legal guidance after the dismissal of the reference.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compensation provided to the petitioner for the land acquisition was adequate and that the land valuation was done appropriately considering the market value of the land.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the relevant documents were also considered before conducting the valuation of the land.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the petitioners were negligent and lacked sufficient cause for the delay in condonation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the Reference to Court
  2. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the Appeals in Proceedings Before Court
  3. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the Bar of Limitation
  4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes Extension of Prescribed Period in Certain Case

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the said case revolves around whether the compensation provided to the petitioners for the land acquisition were apt?
  2. Another issue revolved around whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified and whether it should be condoned based on the negligence, lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The decision of the High Court in refusing the condonation of delay was upheld by the Supreme Court of India which led to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. Four reasons were stated on which the judgment was established. The first reason was that there was a lack of due diligence on the petitioner’s part in hounding the matter. The second reason was that there was negligence on the part of the claimant in pursuing the reference and instituting the premeditated appeal. The third reason was that out of the 16 claimants, most of them accepted the reference court’s decision and the last reason was that the claimants did not seek procedural review. The court accentuated the need for furnishing sufficient cause to justify the condonation of delay in legal proceedings as well as the adherence to the law of limitation. The court observed that the resurrection of dead matters cannot be used in the context of phrases “Justice-Oriented” and “Liberal Approach” under the Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. The court also asserted a lack of merit in the Special Leave Petition from the petitioner’s side in filing an appeal in the stipulated time frame keeping in view the limitation period. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of merit

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click here to View Judgement