8 October 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Unnecessary Prosecutions In Abetment of Suicide Cases Due to Inability of Courts to Apply Correct Principles of Law: Supreme Court

While quashing an abetment to suicide case against senior officials of Hindustan Uniliver Limited (HUL), THE Supreme Court recently cautioned the courts as well as the police against the incorrect application of the principles governing abetment of suicide.

“Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong it all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation.”

“The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

The Court said that the basic test to ascertain whether the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC was committed or not is to know whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide.

In this case, a criminal case was registered against the appellants that they had harassed and humiliated the deceased (salesman in HUL) in the meeting and asked him to take Voluntary Retirement from the Job. Such action on the part of the Appellants led the deceased to take extreme steps to commit suicide as he felt bad about it.

The High Court refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants. According to the High Court, the deceased committed suicide on account of instigation in the form of harassment & humiliation at the end of the appellants. Following this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The question that appeared for the Court's consideration was whether the appellants could be said to have instigated the deceased that ultimately led him to commit suicide.

Before the Supreme Court, Sr. Adv. Gagan Gupta along with AoR Nikhil Jain representing the appellants contended that the requisite of Section 306 IPC was not fulfilled as the Appellants did not intend to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court observed that unless a direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused is proved no offence of abetment to suicide could be made out.

“The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.”

Factors Need To Be Examined By Courts

Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court found the entire High Court approach incorrect. According to the Court, the High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following:

“(a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the deceased colleagues referred to by us were sufficient.

(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?

(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out?

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity."

From the conspectus of the decision undertaken, the Court noted that putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

"In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out", the court held.

Accordingly, the pending criminal case against the appellant was quashed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Case- Nipun Aneja and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. ‘Can’t Impose One’s Religious Belief On Another’: Kerela High Court Refuses to Quash Case Against Man for Criticizing Muslim Girls Handshake

The Kerela High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against a man under section 153 of the IPC (giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and section 119 (a) (punishment for atrocities against women) of the Kerela police act, who made allegations against a Muslim girl that she committed adultery and violated Shariat law by shaking hands with the former Finance Minister of the State.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan stated that the constitution guarantees every citizen the right to follow religious practices in their own way and it is their personal choice. The court stated that there are no compulsions in religion, especially in Islam. The court further stated the one person cannot impose or compel another person to follow religious practices.

“In all religions, there are age old practices and conventions. Some may agree and some may disagree with those religious beliefs. Agree and disagree is part of our democratic principle and it is also a constitutional right of every citizen. One cannot impose his religious practice on another and it is a personal choice of every citizen. If the prosecution case is correct and proved through cogent evidence, it is a serious thing which will definitely intrude on the personal liberty of the second respondent.”

In this case, the de facto complainant is a law graduate. Her case is that while she was in second year of college, the then Finance Minister, Dr Thomas Issac visited her college. The de facto complainant asked a question to Dr Issac during the interactive session. The students who asked questions were given gifts by calling them to the stage and the de facto complainant also received a gift after giving handshake to the Finance Minister. This program was video graphed by media and shown live in various channels.

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner made a Facebook post and a Whatsapp video was also circulated by him alleging that she violated Shariat law by shaking hands with the Finance Minister.

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Section 153 of IPC and Section 119 (a) of the Kerala Police Act. She alleged that the post and video made by him brought disgrace to her family.

The Court noted that shaking hands is a traditional gesture and in modern times it is seen as a sign of confidence and professionalism.

The Court further noted that in Muslim religion, physical contact including a handshake, between a woman and unrelated man is seen as forbidden or Haram.

In this context, the Court observed that even Quranic verses gives emphasis to personal choice of an individual. It said, “Surah Al-Kafirun (109:6) says, “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion”. Surah Al- Baqarah (2:256) says that “There is no compulsion in religion”.

Observing that religious beliefs are personal, the Court asked, “What is the business of the petitioner to attack the 2nd respondent when the 2nd respondent voluntarily decided to give a handshake to the Hon'ble Minister while accepting a gift for participating in a discussion?"

The Court stated that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion to all and that the de facto complainant also has the right to follow her religious beliefs in her own way.

Court said, “None can impose a religious belief of his own on another. Therefore, if the allegation against the petitioner is correct, the same cannot be accepted in India, where the Indian Constitution is supreme.”

The Court added that the Constitution protects the interest of the de facto complainant who alleges that the petitioner has violated her personal freedom of religious belief.

Court added, “our constitution will protect her interest. Moreover, it is the duty of the society to support her. No religious belief is above the constitution and the constitution is supreme”

The Court stated that whether offences under Section 153 of the IPC and Section 119 (a) of the Kerala Police Act were committed must be decided by the Trial Court during the trial. It thus stated that the present facts do make out a case for the Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

It stated that the petitioner can be honourably acquitted if he is proven to be innocent by the jurisdictional court after facing the trial.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition by noting that there are no merits in it. It also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

Case- Abdul Noushad @ Noushad Ahsani vs. State of Kerela

3. Widow denied PM Awas Benefits For 7 years Due to Forgery of Govt. Official: Orissa HC Orders Immediate Disbursal of Benefit, Recovery from Salary

The Orissa High Court has ordered the Panchayati Raj Department to immediately disburse the benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) to an elderly widow, who despite of being eligible to get the benefits, was deprived of the same due to forgery committed by a person in collusion with a government official.

Underlining the unjust and illegal deprivation caused to the lady due to no fault of her own, the single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed.

This court is of the view that, the petitioner being a widow, who is waiting since 2016-17 for getting the benefit under the PMAYG scheme, it would not be appropriate to ask her to wait further for inclusion of her name afresh under the PMAY-G scheme.

Factual Background

The petitioner is an old widow lady who, after the death of her husband, had applied for benefit under the PMAY-G scheme in the year 2016-17 before Sarpanch, Khaira Gram Panchayat under Balasore district.

After her repeated requests to the authorities, a field enquiry was conducted in the year 2021 and ground staff found her eligible to avail the benefit under the scheme. Accordingly, her name was included in the relevant list for construction of a new house under the scheme.

Despite of such registration, no amount was sanctioned in her favour. To know about the status of her application, she applied for information under the RTI Act regarding allotment in favour of beneficiaries for the years 2016-18.

The concerned Public Information Officer intimated her that such information is publicly available on the website of PMAY-G. Accordingly, she searched for the information and to her utter surprise, she found that though an amount has been sanctioned in her favour but the same has been disbursed to another woman.

To ventilate her grievances, she submitted her representation before the Collector, Balasore but no efficacious step was taken by any of the authorities although seven to eight years have elapsed in the meantime. Therefore, she approached the High Court filing this writ petition.

Proceedings Before the Court & Observations

During the course of hearing, the Block Development Officer (BDO), Khaira was directed to file a counter affidavit, wherein it was indicated that though the amount has been sanctioned in name of the petitioner but it has been disbursed in favour of another woman.

It was also stated that another woman impersonated the petitioner and filed an affidavit sworn before a notary claiming herself to be the real beneficiary. After filing of such affidavit, the BDO had instructed the Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO), Khaira to enquire into the matter and submit a report.

The PEO submitted his report, which contained signatures/endorsements of some villagers, affirming the affidavit filed the said lady to be true. On the basis of such order, the BDO issued work order in favour of the said lady.

Subsequently, it was discovered that the lady had colluded with the PEO to commit forgery which led to disbursement of the amount in her favour and the petition was deprived of the benefit.

The Court perused the relevant documents including the report of the PEO, forged notary affidavit of the said lady and also the counter affidavit filed by the BDO. After examining the same, the Court was of the view that the said lady took away the benefit by impersonating the petitioner and she could do the same due to the false report of the PEO.

The counsel for the State conceded the fact that the petitioner, despite of being eligible to avail the benefits under the scheme, has been deprived of the same. But he submitted that though the process of inclusion of names was over in 2019, it has been further extended and currently, the portal is accepting new registrations.

However, the Court was averse to the suggestion that the petitioner should be asked to re-apply for the same.

“From the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that once the application of the Petitioner under the PMAY-G, after verification, was accepted and her name was included in the beneficiary list under the Scheme, the Petitioner should not be asked to wait further for inclusion of her name under the extended Scheme in terms of the said Circular dated 21.08.2024,” it held.

Accordingly, it ordered the department to issue fresh work order in favour of the petitioner without pestering on re-inclusion of her name afresh.

Further, it ordered the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore Division, Balasore to investigate into the matter and proceed against the culprits in accordance with law.

Above all, the Court directed the Panchayti Raj Department to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner towards cost in order to compensate the humiliation and hardship caused to her due to the misconduct and negligence of the State officials. It was clarified that the above amount shall be recovered from the salary of the erring officials.

Case- Ramamani Rout vs. State of Odisha & Ors.