Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Dalbir Singh VS State Of U. P. ...
2004 3 Supreme 506 : Under Section 464 Cr.P.C., a court may convict an accused of an offence for which no charge was framed, provided that the accused was not prejudiced during trial and had adequate notice of the allegations. In cases where evidence establishes the ingredients of Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), even if no charge was framed under that section, conviction can be recorded if there is no failure of justice. The court must assess whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence, whether the main facts were clearly explained to him, and whether he had a fair opportunity to defend himself. In this case, the accused was confronted with all relevant facts during cross-examination and under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and admitted key aspects of the prosecution''''s case, including that his wife committed suicide. Therefore, despite no charge being framed under Section 306 IPC, the conviction was upheld as it did not result in failure of justice.Checking relevance for Kashibai VS State Of Karnataka...
2023 3 Supreme 452 : Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove a positive act by the accused to instigate, aid, or drive a person to commit suicide. Mere commission of suicide is not sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act for convicting someone under Section 306 IPC. The court must establish both that the death was suicidal and that there was abetment by the accused as defined under Section 107 IPC. Without evidence of such abetment, conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained.Checking relevance for Harjit Singh VS State Of Punjab...
2005 8 Supreme 353 : Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, a person can be convicted for abetting the suicide of a married woman if it is established that: (i) the deceased committed suicide, and (ii) she had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. The cruelty must be of the kind defined in Section 498A, including harassment for unlawful demands for property or valuable security. A presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act can be raised only if these two conditions are met. The requirement of ''''soon before'''' death, which applies to Section 304B (dowry death), does not apply to Section 306. Thus, cruelty can be earlier than the death, as long as it is proven to have contributed to the suicide. However, in the absence of evidence of suicide or cruelty under Section 498A, conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained.Checking relevance for SATBIR SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA...
2021 4 Supreme 91 : Section 306 IPC deals with the abetment of suicide. The prosecution must first establish that a suicide has been committed, and then prove that the accused played an active role in abetting it. In cases where the death is alleged to be due to suicide, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act creates a presumption against the husband or his relatives, but this presumption only applies if the factum of suicide is established by the prosecution. As held in Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, before conviction under Section 306 IPC, it must be proven that the deceased person actually committed suicide.Checking relevance for VELLADURAI VS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE...
Checking relevance for Wattan Singh VS State Of Punjab...
Checking relevance for Kamalakar VS State of Karnataka...
2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1139 : Under Section 306 IPC, abetment of suicide requires proof of active instigation or a direct act that leaves the victim with no alternative but to commit suicide. The court emphasized that mere harassment or cruelty, even if established under Section 498A IPC, does not automatically constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC. Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear mens rea and a proximate, positive act by the accused that directly led to the suicide. The presumption of harassment under Section 498A IPC does not extend to Section 306 IPC, and abetment must be proven by the prosecution through direct or indirect acts of incitement. The court held that in the absence of such evidence, conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.
