Supreme Court overturns High Court order in abetment to suicide case: Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 123
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a High Court interfere with criminal proceedings at an initial stage by assessing the evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the High Court had quashed criminal proceedings related to abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that High Courts should not assess the merits of a case based on statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during the initial stages of a criminal proceeding. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Rajeev Kourav (the Appellant) at the Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur, leading to the registration of FIR No. 285 of 2014 on May 8, 2014. The complaint alleged that Baisahab (Respondent No. 1), along with her brothers (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3), had harassed Nilu, the Appellant’s wife, leading her to commit suicide along with her two children. According to the complaint, Respondent No. 1 was dissatisfied with the land given to her husband by the Appellant’s father. This dissatisfaction allegedly led Respondent No. 1 and her brothers to harass the Appellant’s family, particularly Nilu. The FIR stated that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 used to quarrel with Nilu. On May 5, 2014, Respondent No. 1 filed a false complaint against the Appellant and his parents. She also intimidated Mahendra Singh Kourav, the Appellant’s maternal uncle, by threatening to set herself and her children on fire and implicate the Appellant’s family in a criminal case. Mahendra Singh Kourav reported this incident to the police on May 7, 2014. The police called the Appellant, his family, and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the police station, and the matter was temporarily resolved. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 allegedly assaulted Nilu in the village Jhumri. Unable to bear the torture, Nilu and her two children committed suicide by jumping in front of a moving train.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

After the investigation, a final report was filed on July 19, 2014. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. They argued that the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide, were not met. The High Court examined the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and concluded that the allegations against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 only amounted to criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. The High Court also held that the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment, were not satisfied. Consequently, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of three key provisions of Indian law:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of abetment of suicide. It states, “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines abetment. It states, “A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It is often invoked to quash criminal proceedings at the initial stage.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3:

• The allegations in the FIR and charge sheet only disclose harassment of the deceased and her family, not abetment to suicide.
• There is no evidence that the Respondents instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
• Abetment, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, requires instigation, which is absent in the Appellant’s complaint.
• If the allegations against the Respondents do not prima facie constitute an offense, they should not be subjected to a criminal trial.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant:

• The High Court erred in assessing the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, which are inadmissible as evidence at this stage.
• One of the witnesses stated that the deceased had informed him about the harassment by the Respondents and her intention to commit suicide.
• The High Court should not have quashed the proceedings at this stage, as the Respondents should have a fair opportunity to prove their innocence in a full-fledged trial.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC based on an assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. [(2007) 7 SCC 378]: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. [(2007) 7 SCC 378]: The Supreme Court followed this authority to reiterate that statements under Section 161 CrPC are inadmissible and cannot be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, particularly the inadmissibility of statements under Section 161 of the CrPC as evidence at the initial stage of criminal proceedings. The Court also highlighted the need for a fair trial, where the accused have an opportunity to present their case and prove their innocence.
The Court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court had overlooked the statement of one of the witnesses who had stated that the deceased had informed him about the harassment and her intention to commit suicide.

The Supreme Court stated, “Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.” The Court further noted, “The High Court committed an error in quashing criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under Section 161 Cr. P .C.” The Court also observed, “The High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings at this stage, scuttling a full-fledged trial in which Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would have a fair opportunity to prove their innocence.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC based on an assessment of statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, as these statements are inadmissible as evidence at the initial stage.
• The accused have a right to a fair trial where they can present their case and prove their innocence.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be prematurely terminated, especially when there is a prima facie case against the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal. The criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were reinstated, and they were directed to face a full-fledged trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC by assessing statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. This judgment reaffirms the established legal principle that statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC are not admissible as evidence during the initial stages of criminal proceedings. The judgment clarifies that the High Court should not interfere with criminal proceedings at the initial stage by assessing the merits of the case based on inadmissible evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Ors. emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and ensuring a fair trial for the accused. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings, holding that the High Court erred in assessing the merits of the case based on statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, which are inadmissible as evidence at the initial stage. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be prematurely terminated, and the accused should have a fair opportunity to prove their innocence in a full-fledged trial.