Latest news with #Section306
Time of India
a day ago
- General
- Time of India
High courts can't suo motu enhance punishment in appeal: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held high courts cannot exercise suo motu revision powers either to enhance the sentence or to convict an accused on any other charge in the absence of appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict on an appeal filed by one Nagarajan, challenging an order of Madurai bench of the Madras High Court which convicted him for abetment of suicide of a woman and sentenced him to five-years rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted of charges of outraging the modesty and house trespass. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sistema TMS para empresas de logística Sistema TMS embarcador Saiba Mais Undo The top court noted that the trial court acquitted him of the charges of Section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide and convicted him only for outraging the modesty of the woman and house trespass. Nagarajan appealed in the high court, which upheld the trial court's order of conviction but suo motu initiated proceedings for his conviction under Section 306 of the IPC and convicted him. Live Events It came on record that no appeal was filed by the state, victim or complainant for enhancement of sentence or acquittal under section 306 of the IPC. "An appeal filed by the accused/convict and in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state, the high court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge," the bench said. As a result, the bench set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC but confirmed his conviction for "outraging the modesty of woman" and "house trespass". "The appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the sessions court," it held. The top court noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the high court. "Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant," it said. According to the bench "the rationale of the above can be explained in simple language by stating that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was". "That is exactly what we are seeking to reiterate in our judgment having regard to the facts of the present case." Justice Nagarathna, who authored the verdict, said for exercising powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed either by the state or the complainant or the victim, CrPC provides that the appellate court can reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a court competent to try the offence, or alter the finding by maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. "Thus, the power to enhance the sentence can be exercised by the appellate court only in an appeal filed by the state, victim or complainant, provided the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement," the court held. The bench said that the trial court should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence which must be "concomitant" with the charges framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction. Nagarajan had challenged the November 29, 2021 order of the high court. He was accused of outraging the modesty of his neighbour by trespassing her house on July 11, 2003. The woman died by suicide along with her infant, the very next day.
Hans India
4 days ago
- Hans India
SC discharges hostel in-charge of abetting student's suicide
The Supreme Court has discharged a Tamil Nadu school hostel in-charge, who was accused of abetting a student's suicide. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with an appeal challenging a decision of the Madras High Court, which had rejected the prayer to discharge the appellant for the offence of abetment to suicide under the Indian Penal Code's Section 306. The appellant's counsel contended before the apex court that the appellant had scolded the deceased, due to which the latter had locked himself in a room and hanged himself with a nylon rope. It was argued that the response of the appellant, being the correspondent and in charge of running a school and hostel, was justified, and it was just a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence, and there was peace and tranquillity in the hostel. It was further submitted that there was nothing personal between the appellant and the deceased, and such reprimanding was meted out to the deceased only on a complaint by another student. The appellant was accused in an FIR registered by the state police CB-CID for the offences punishable under Sections 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) and 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, charges were framed against him under Section 306. Before the apex court, the counsel representing the Tamil Nadu government "fairly" stated that there did not appear to be any valid ground for charging the appellant for abetment to suicide. In its order, the Supreme Court noted that despite valid service of notice, the complainant, the father of the deceased student, did not appear in the proceedings before the top court. "Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life," it said. The apex court added that such scolding was the least a correspondent was required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures effected. After considering the factual position, the top court, in its considered opinion, found that no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant with regard to the abetment of suicide committed by the deceased. Allowing the appeal, it directed that "the order framing charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC in connection with FIR No.01/2024 registered by CBCID stands set aside. The appellant stands discharged in the said case".
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Scolding does not amount to provoking someone to take own life: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has discharged a man who was accused of driving a student to suicide by scolding him. The accused, in charge of a school and a hostel, had scolded the deceased following a complaint by another student. After the incident, the student killed himself. A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that no ordinary person could have imagined that a scolding would result in such a tragedy. The top court set aside an order of the Madras High Court, which had refused to discharge the teacher for the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. "Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such a tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life," the bench said. The apex court said such scolding was the least to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures were effected. "In the considered opinion of this court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea (knowledge of wrongdoing) can be attributed to the appellant, much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased," the bench said. The man, through his lawyer, had submitted that his response was justified and was merely a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence, and to maintain peace and tranquillity in the hostel. He had submitted that there was nothing personal between him and the deceased. [Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State's health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416 and SNEHA's suicide prevention helpline - 044 24640050 or from any of the numbers in this link]
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
SC says scolding isn't abetment to suicide, quashes case against hostel in-charge
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Sunday discharged a man who was accused of driving a student to suicide by scolding accused, in charge of a school and a hostel, had scolded the deceased following a complaint by another student. After the incident, the student hanged himself in a room.A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that no ordinary person could have imagined that a scolding would result in such a top court set aside an order of the Madras High Court, which had refused to discharge the teacher for the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code."Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such a tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life," the bench apex court said such scolding was the least to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures were effected."In the considered opinion of this court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea (knowledge of wrongdoing) can be attributed to the appellant, much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased," the bench man, through his lawyer, had submitted that his response was justified and was merely a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence, and to maintain peace and tranquillity in the had submitted that there was nothing personal between him and the deceased.
News18
5 days ago
- News18
Sending Draft Divorce Proposal Doesn't Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Kerala High Court
Last Updated: The woman's mother had accused her husband and others of cruelty and abetment to suicide after her daughter jumped into a well The Kerala High Court recently set aside a trial court's order that added charge of abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) against a man whose wife died killed herself shortly after receiving a draft divorce agreement. The bench of Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath, delivering the judgment on May 22, allowed a petition filed by one Puthiya Purayil Shaji, challenging the Magistrate's decision to frame an additional charge under Section 306 IPC in a case already proceeding under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband). The case pertained to the tragic death of Shaji's wife in 2005, just three months after their marriage. The woman's mother, MK Padmini, had accused Shaji and others of cruelty and abetment to suicide after her daughter jumped into a well. An FIR was initially registered for both 498A and 306 IPC, but the final police report only invoked Section 498A. Years into the trial, after 11 witnesses had been examined, the prosecution moved an application under Section 216 CrPC, seeking to add the charge of abetment of suicide. The trial court agreed, finding that evidence from family members showed the deceased was devastated upon receiving a draft divorce agreement from the accused's side. However, the high court took a stricter view. It emphasised that the law demands more than emotional distress to prove abetment. 'They did not state that the petitioner played any active role in either instigating or intentionally aiding the commission of suicide…The prosecution has no case that the petitioner, through accused No.3 in Annexure A1 complaint, handed over the Annexure A2 draft agreement with the intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide," the court held. Referring to multiple Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that for a charge under Section 306 to stand, there must be a clear and proximate act of instigation or aiding the suicide. 'A mere allegation of humiliation, harassment or threat unaccompanied by any incitement or instigation is not at all sufficient to attract the offence," the court noted. The judgment further clarified that while Section 216 CrPC grants courts wide powers to alter or add charges, such powers must be exercised based on substantive material evidence. Since the prosecution's own witnesses did not allege any instigation or intent on the part of the petitioner, the addition of Section 306 IPC was found unwarranted. The high court also pointed out that the initial investigating officer had rightly excluded the abetment charge after reviewing the case diary. Therefore, setting aside the Magistrate's order, the high court ruled that the criminal trial shall proceed only under Section 498A IPC. If you or someone you know needs help, call any of these helplines: Aasra (Mumbai) 022-27546669, Sneha (Chennai) 044-24640050, Sumaitri (Delhi) 011-23389090, Cooj (Goa) 0832- 2252525, Jeevan (Jamshedpur) 065-76453841, Pratheeksha (Kochi) 048-42448830, Maithri (Kochi) 0484-2540530, Roshni (Hyderabad) 040-66202000, Lifeline 033-64643267 (Kolkata) First Published:
