ANAGHA HITESH ARYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision application is moved by the applicant/accused against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2017 below exhibit 4 in Sessions Case No.179 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane rejecting the discharge application. The applicant/accused is the wife of the deceased/husband, who is facing prosecution u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant/accused and her husband Hitesh got married in December, 2002. In 2005, the applicant/wife delivered a boy and they all were residing together at Thane. The deceased Hitesh was working in ICICI bank. The couple was not sailing smooth due to the disputes between them. Both of them were suspicious about each other. The deceased Hitesh used to inform about the torture and harassment at the hands of the applicant/accused. He had informed his father that he was tired of his life because of the ill-treatment. On 3.7.2015, Hitesh showed vulgar messages sent by the applicant/accused to his friend Bhaskar and due to this objectionable communication between the applicant/accused and his friend, the deceased Hitesh was hurt and disturbed. On 8.7.2015, the applicant/accused called the father of the deceased/husband. Accordingly, he went to Platinum hospital, Thane. At that time, she told him that her husband has set himself on fire. The father of the deceased found him in a burnt condition. He was shifted to National Burns Centre, Navi Mumbai. However, he succumbed to the injuries at 10.30pm on the same day. The father thereafter on the next day, approached Kasarwadavli police at Thane and gave complaint against the applicant/accused. The police after recording an FIR lodged by Mahendra Bhikubhai Arya, registered the offence at C.R. No.I-165 of 2015 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant/accused. The case was then committed against her. During the pendency of the case, an application was moved for discharge at exhibit 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Thane, by his order dated 12.12.2017 rejected the said application. Hence, this revision application.

(3.) Mr.Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused, has submitted that the material placed before the Court does not make out the offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that the husband and wife both were suspicious about each other. The FIR does not disclose the act of abetment by the applicant/accused. He relied on the statement of the witnesses, neighbours Prasad and Priya, who had reported about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the night intervening 7.7.205 and 8.7.2015 and thereafter, they were the first to whom the applicant/accused reported the incident of burning which took place in the morning at 8.10am on 8.7.2015. He relied on the statements of friend Bhaskar, neighbour Sharwari; so also on the statement of one Pooja, the friend of Hitesh. He argued that these statements do not reveal any act of abetment of the applicant/accused wife or any role played by her in the commission of offence of abetment to commit suicide. He relied on the statement of Krishiv Hitesh Arya, the son of the couple which was recorded on 16.7.2015. The learned Counsel has further submitted that she is blamed by the father for getting involved in the phone sex by sending messages with Bhaskar and her another friend at Dubai. The learned Counsel has submitted that this fact of phone sex cannot be denied. However, this cannot be said as abetment to commit suicide as the act was done secretly with a view to keep the deceased husband in dark. The learned Counsel submitted that mens rea is required to prosecute a person under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which is absent in the present case. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, 2010 12 SCC 190.