Law of Crimes III, Int1

III Year B.A., LL. B (Div.-D and E) – Semester-V (2023)

1st -Internal Assessment – Law of crimes III

Research Article submission

Topic
‘Hypothetical Scenario’

NAME: Manavi Sinha WORD COUNT : 2219

DIVISION: D
PRN: 21010125366
COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2021-2026

1
Law of Crimes III, Int1

Q.1 As a lawyer for the defence which court would you appeal against the decision of the
trial court.

ANS:

1. In the provided hypothetical scenario, as a defense lawyer, the author would appeal
the trial court's decision to the High Court under Section 374 of CrPc specifies the
procedure for appealing convictions. In accordance with this provision, a
conviction may be appealed to the High Court. In the scenario presented, the
trial court deemed the husband guilty of aiding Kamala's suicide in violation of
Section 306 of the IPC and Section 113 A of the Evidence Act. Since the trial court
is a court of first instance, the appeal would be filed in the High Court.
2. Case Laws:
 Jogi v. State of Madhya Pradesh1: During Section 374 CrPC appeals, High
Court independently assesses evidence to decide guilt.
 Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra2: Convicted have inherent, unrestricted right
to appeal under Section 374 CrPC and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

3. In the given situation, the spouse has been found guilty under Section 306 of IPC,
which stipulates a maximum penalty of ten years of imprisonment.
4. The defense's appeal to the High Court must be meticulously prepared, noting the
trial court's legal flaws, contradictions, or misinterpretations. In order to contest the
conviction and seek a review of the verdict, the appeal would require presenting legal
reasons, referring relevant case laws, provisions of legislation, and evidence presented
during the trial.
5. Upon receipt of the appeal, the High Court would consider the trial court's decision
and the evidence and legal arguments in the appeal. If the High Court determines that
the appeal has validity, it can either revoke the conviction or order a re-trial,
depending on the facts of the case.

1
CrA 1350 of 2021, LL 2021 SC 639.
2
Appeal (crl.) 521 of 2007.

2
Law of Crimes III, Int1

6. In Geeta Devi v. State of UP3, The Supreme Court recently reiterated that a High
Court in a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC is duty bound to consider the
entirety of the evidence.4
7. A case in which the appellant faced seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine,
with a default one-month imprisonment, resulted in the appeal being heard by the
High Court rather than dismissed.56
8. Finally, as a defense lawyer, the author would appeal the trial court's verdict to the
Court of High, as authorized by Section 374 of CrPc. The appeal would be based on
legal grounds and would seek a reconsideration of the husband's conviction and
punishment.

Q.2 What are the grounds on which you would appeal against the decision?

1. THE ABSENCE OF MENS REA AND INSTIGATION –

According to the court ruling in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raval Deepakkkumar
Shankerchand7the act of abetment of suicide under section 306 is comprised of
several essential elements-
1. Actual abetment
2. The accused's intention to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased in committing
suicide.
3. To constitute instigation, the accused must, through words, deeds, or wilful
omission or conduct, including wilful silence, annoy the victim until the deceased
reacted, was pushed, or was forced to commit suicide to prove that the accused
aided the suicide and that the defendant intended to provoke, urge, or
encourage the victim to commit suicide.8

3
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78 OF 2022
4
Adarsh Patel & Anmol Gupta, A Journey from F.I.R. to Judgment, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL
Rsch. 1 (2022).
5
MN Rao alias Nagaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 Cr LJ 549 (AP); Niranjan Nayak v RK Mohapatra, 1994
Cr LJ 3821 (Ori).
6
Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore, and Ratanlal Ranchhoddas, Criminal Procedure Code, Wadhawa and Co., 18th
Edition, (2006)
7
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20079 of 2021

8
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618

3
Law of Crimes III, Int1

4. One of the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide is the MENS REA to

entice or to compel or intentionally assist a person in suicide.9
5. From the given facts , the intention of Raju , the accused , cannot be clearly
determined , as there is no evidence that portrays in a palpable manner that there
was intention to instigate Komal to commit suicide . As per the Supreme Court in
the case of M Mohan v. Deputy Superintendent of Police 10, such evidence is an
essential to convict for abetment to suicide.
6. Moreover, Raju merely threatening in a fit of rage without his intending the
11
consequences does not constitute instigation. Raju, in a fit of rage threatened
Komal but had no intention to ever cause such harm and thus cannot be said to
have instigated the deceased to die by suicide.

2. NO DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCUSED’S ACTIONS AND

SUICIDE:

1. To establish the crime of assisting suicide, it must be demonstrated that there was
a direct link between the accused's actions and the deceased's decision to commit
suicide.
2. Without a clear link between the harassing or callous conduct and the decedent's
final act of suicide, it may be challenging to establish the guilt of aiding and
abetting.
3. In the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab,12 the Supreme Court
overturned the earlier convictions. It determined that the appellant's IPC Section
306 conviction was arbitrary because it inferred that the wife's suicide was caused
by the home's conditions, which was not supported by material evidence.
4. Notably, neither Kamala nor her sons took any official action against Raju in the
ongoing case, such as initiating the process of submitting an FIR to report his

9
Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011
10
M Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF
2011

11
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618

12
SC,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011

4
Law of Crimes III, Int1

alleged behavior. This absence of official recourse is significant when determining

the veracity of the claims
5. . In addition, Raju's mere possession of a revolver at home is insufficient evidence
that he intended to use it to murder his wife. Possibly, the revolver was kept for
self-defense, necessitating a thorough evaluation of all other possible reasons for
its possession. In light of this, a reasonable interpretation justifies granting Raju
the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to seek justice by submitting an
appeal to a higher court.
6. This course of action is supported by the absence of concrete evidence to
conclusively establish guilt, the potential ambiguity in interpreting the purposes
for possessing a firearm, and the overriding principle of maintaining justice within
the legal system.

3. ASSUMPTION UNDER SECTION 306 AND 113 NOT TENEBALE - In

accordance with Section 113A of the Evidence Act of 1872. A married woman's suicide
is presumed to have been abetted by her husband or a relative of his if she perished by
suicide within seven years of her marriage and if her husband or a relative of his
subjected her to cruelty. 13In contrast, the deceased and the accused were married for
over 20 years and had two sons, Sameer and Samar, ages 18 and 19, respectively.
Therefore, section 113 is inapplicable in this instance because the suicide occurred
years after the duration as prescribed within this section.

4. THE SUICIDE NOTE MAY BE FABRICATED AND IS THUS UNRELIABLE –

The suicide note that was allegedly written by the deceased has words such as “she”
and “her “ , making the same an unreliable document , as it is unlikely that a person
would refer to themselves in third person in their suicide note . Moreover, the mere
mentioning of person in the suicide not does not constitute abetment to suicide if the
essentials of the same are not present .14

13
SC, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 940-941 OF 2021

14
CRM-M-34495-2021 (O&M)

5
 Law of Crimes III, Int1

3. Imagine you are the prosecutor in this case – how would you defend the conviction
and punishment of the accused against the appeal. Explain with the example of case
laws.

1. CRUELTY BY RAJU TOWARDS KOMAL -

498A defines cruelty.15 Cruelty includes physical torture or abuse and mental and
psychological abuse, such as threats, reprimand, and constant berating. The following
essentials have also been demonstrated in the presented scenario:
a) The wife, in this case Kamala, must be married; this is a prerequisite. This clause was
added to defend wives and female relatives from mistreatment by their husbands
and/or male relatives.
b) This woman must have been the target of abuse or harassment. The term "cruelty" can
be applied to a variety of actions. It is inherently cruel to demand a dowry. According
to the facts, Kamala's spouse has subjected her to physical and mental abuse and
torture. Even the psychiatrist has witnessed and accepted her mental state.
c) The wife's or the husband's family, if not both, should have displayed such brutality.
Raju's hostile behaviour towards Kamala satisfies this condition. While menacing her,
he even pointed a revolver in her direction.

II. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF 306 IPC ARE SATISFIED

Section 306 of the IPC defines abetment of suicide and the penalty. To convict a person under
this provision, there must be an identifiable mens rea to commit the offence. The following
essentials have also been fulfilled:

a) Suicide was committed: According to the ruling in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab16, to be
convicted under Section 306 of the Penal Code, an individual must have committed suicide.
In this case, the suicide note left behind by Kamla serves as conclusive evidence that she
committed suicide due to her spouse Raju's repeated threats, torture, and abuse.

15

16
Satviir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828
6
 Law of Crimes III, Int1

b) Direct involvement: There should be explicit or implicit interventions aimed at preventing

suicide.17 In the aforementioned scenario, the wife experienced extended physical and
psychological mistreatment, eventually leading her to voluntarily admit herself to a mental
health facility. There is an argument positing that Raju's series of activities, which involved
initially demanding dowry, afterward seeking a divorce, and resorting to physical violence
upon Kamala's refusal, as well as issuing death threats, ultimately contributed to the
circumstances that compelled Kamala to make the drastic decision she did.

c) Mens Rea - The presence of a criminal mind is demonstrated by ongoing brutality. In Brij
Lal v. Prem Chand,18 it was said that the accused would be guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. if
he had encouraged the dead to commit suicide.

CASE LAWS-

19
 The Supreme Court made it clear in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)
according to the court's ruling, it was determined that the individual in question must have
possessed the intention to deliberately incite, provoke, or encourage the commission of a
criminal act.
 In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State Of West Bengal,20 The Supreme Court has established
that in instances involving alleged assistance in suicide, it is imperative to provide evidence
of either explicit or implicit behaviors that promote suicide. A conviction under Section 306
of the IPC is unlikely to be secured without any affirmative activities by the accused that
directly incited or coerced the individual to commit suicide.

III. INTERPRETING 113A OF EVIDENCE ACT

In Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, the fact that seven years have passed does not negate the
fact that she was subjected to incessant cruelty, which ultimately led to her death. 21 It is
17
Pitta Isaac Newton, Abetment of Suicide (Section. 306 of Indian Penal Code), 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN.
4520 (2021).
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs11&div=397&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection
=journals
18
Brij Lal v. Prem Chand, MANU/SC/0082/1989
19
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) CR Appeal No. 1473 of 2009
20
Ammalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State Of West Bengal, 2010 AIR (SC) 512
21
Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405

7
Law of Crimes III, Int1

argued that sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied, which contributes
to the argument that Raju is liable for assisting in suicide, which is one of the additional
circumstances under 113A. In this instance, Raju's persistent divorce demands, threats, and
harshness contributed to Kamala's death by suicide. Raju threatened to kill Kamala and her
sons if she rejected a divorce. He created a situation in which Kamala had no choice but to
comply. She was also subjected to relentless psychological torment, ultimately leading to her
suicide.

Q. 4 Assume as the appellant you lose the appeal in the higher court. What other

options do you have? Can you take it directly before the Supreme Court of

India? Explain your answer with reference to relevant legal provisions.

1. Review Petition: If the higher court (in this scenario, the High Court) rejects the appeal,
the appellant's first alternative is to file a review petition there. A review petition requests that
the same court reconsider the case for a specific reason. It is critical to remember that the
scope of a review petition is limited, and its primary function is to attract attention to flaws in
the record.

Only a "patent error" and not "minor mistakes of inconsequential import" may be corrected
through judicial review.

Relevant Provisions: The legal provisions for filing a review petition before a high court in
India are governed by the rules established in the CPC, 1908, and the CrPc, 1973, as well as
relevant statutes unique to various courts, such as the Supreme Court or certain high courts.
Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules from 2013 specifies the process for review
petitions in the Supreme Court of India.

22
In Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Uttarakhand The Supreme Court reiterated that a
petition for review is not a disguised appeal. It can only be considered for reexamination if
there has been an egregious omission or error, or if there are defects in the record that are
readily apparent.

22
2017 2 SCC 801

8
Law of Crimes III, Int1

2. Curative Petition: Suppose the review petition is denied, and the appellant believes a
grave injustice has occurred. In that case, they may file a curative petition with the Supreme
Court under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution. The concept of natural justice forms the
basis of this remarkable remedy..In "Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Another"23, the
Supreme Court upheld the idea of a curative petition as a safeguard against procedural abuse
and to avoid injustice.

3. Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court: If the aforementioned options fail to
produce the desired results, the appellant may file a SLP with the Supreme Court. It is not
automatic, but the Supreme Court has the authority to grant an SLP. Relevant provisions:
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to grant special
leave to appeal any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order rendered in any cause
or case by any domestic court or tribunal.

"Puranlal vs. President of India “24 highlights the fact that the Supreme Court can only
issue special leave in extreme circumstances involving material legal questions or matters of
great public concern.

In conclusion, if the High Court denies the appeal, Raju may file a review petition, a curative
petition, and then a Special Leave Petition (SLP) with the Supreme Court. Depending on the
merits of the case, the legal justifications, and the court's judicial discretion, these solutions
may be available and successful.

23
2002. 4 SCC 388
24
(1962) 2 SCR 889