Allahabad Aug 12(ILNS): Allahabad High Court on Tuesday rejected the Bail Applications to a woman accused of abetting her husband to commit suicide.
A Single Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Sayara Uruuz @ Afsana.
The application has been filed by applicant Sayara Uruuz alias Afsana, who is involved in the case registered under section 306 IPC, in police station Chamanganj, district Kanpur Nagar, seeking enlargement on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The facts of the case are that Sameer Ahmad, who is the son of deceased Shakeel Ahmad moved a written application to the Station House Officer, police station Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar mentioning therein that her mother telephonically informed him that on December 23, 2020, at 6.30 a.m. his father Shakeel Ahmad had committed suicide by hanging in the flat.
On receiving the aforesaid information, Sub-Inspector-Tanveer Ahmad along with other police personnel reached the spot, and after preparing an inquest report at the spot and taking the opinion of witnesses of the inquest, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination.
Thereafter, on the basis of contents of a suicide note, which was recovered from the possession of the deceased at the time of conducting inquest proceeding, the first information report dated December 24, 2020, has been lodged at 20:52 O’clock by the informant-Tanveer Ahmad, S.I., against the wife of the deceased, namely, Sayara Uruuz alias Afsana (applicant) and one Rajnish Sethi for the alleged commission of abetment of suicide.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case with some ulterior motive.
Counsel further submitted that the alleged suicide note is a fabricated document and the same has not been sent for forensic test, hence the same is irrelevant material and cannot be treated as evidence against the applicant.
It is also submitted that there is no corroborative evidence to support the contents of an alleged suicide note. The alleged act of the applicant cannot be said to be of such nature, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option left. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the deceased instead of committing suicide had an option to give “talaq” to his wife (applicant). No case for abetment or instigation of suicide is made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to her credit and is facing detention since February 05, 2021.
It was contended that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.
Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the deceased was the second husband of the applicant. One Israr Beg was the first husband of the applicant. The applicant had two children, namely, Ashi and Danish from the wedlock of her first husband (Israr Beg), but on account of her bad habits and illicit relation with other persons, her first husband had given divorce (talaq) to her.
Thereafter, she performed second marriage with the deceased on January 19, 1989, which was their love marriage and from the wedlock of the deceased, she has one son, namely, Samir Ahmad.
It is next submitted that at the time of conducting inquest proceeding, a mobile phone and suicide note of seven pages, which was kept in sealed envelop were recovered from the possession of the applicant, which was opened in the presence of higher officers, in which deceased alleged inter-alia that four times, he had caught his wife (applicant) red-handed with other persons.
It also stated that she has illicit relations with several persons and she does not want to give up her relationship with them. Much emphasis has been given that bare perusal of the suicide note, it is apparently clear that on account of bad conduct and illicit relation of the applicant with co-accused Rajnish Sethi and other persons mentioned in the suicide note as well as abetment and instigation made by the applicant and co-accused Rajnish Sethi, deceased committed suicide.
It is also submitted that the suicide note in question along with samples of handwriting and specimens of signature of the deceased were sent for forensic test to the Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, U.P. Rajgarh, Jhansi, which was received in the laboratory on February 16, 2021, and as per report dated March 01, 2021, of the aforesaid laboratory, it has confirmed that said suicide note has been written by the deceased.
Lastly, it is submitted that as per the allegation she appears to be a shrewd lady and in case bail is granted to her, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence and witnesses.
The Court observed that having heard the argument of the Counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that for abetment of suicide, there must be a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence. The word suicide is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code. The meaning of suicide requires no explanation. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. No standard or straight jacket formula can be laid down with regard to the sensitivity of each individual because different people behave differently in the same situation. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Sometimes a comment passed against a person on a lighter side is taken very seriously by such persons, who are hyper-sensitive while other persons, who are not so sensitive, behave differently, they ignore even serious comments made against them and try their best to face the situation.
Therefore, each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. If the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds, or conduct, which may provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide is an abetment. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide are imperative. In a case of suicide, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide.
The Court noted that, under the facts of the case, I find no proximate link between the unfortunate incident in question and the act of the accused applicant. Though the deceased had died because of hanging, facts of the case reflect that he was a hyper-sensitive man and was very much depressed and feels humiliated among his family members, friends, and in society on account of bad habits, immoral acts, misbehavior, and illicit relation of his wife (applicant) with several other persons as well as his harassment by the applicant, as mentioned by him in his suicide note. The materials on record, also show that despite the best effort and persuasion made by the deceased, the applicant was not willing to give up her illicit relation with co-accused and other persons and kept on harassing the deceased adopting a different modus operandi.
The said facts are corroborated by the statement of the witnesses as well as call details of the applicant with other persons as mentioned above. The deceased in his suicide note has specifically mentioned the aforesaid reasons and other compelling circumstances, which prevailed upon him for committing suicide. The Forensic Science Laboratory test report dated March 01, 2021, has confirmed that said suicide note has been written by the deceased.
“It is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that a man may tell a lie, but circumstances do not. In view of the above, I find that allegations and materials against the applicant are of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), hence as on date, from the materials available in case diary of this case and as mentioned in preceding, the prima-facie case for abetment and instigation is made out against the applicant. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the submissions made on behalf of the applicant are not liable to be accepted”, the Court said.
“On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced on behalf of parties, the complicity of the applicant, the gravity of the offense and severity of the punishment, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage”, the order said.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application./ILNS/AP/SNG