‘No direct nexus’: Why Karnataka High Court discharged man after fiancee’s death over cancelled marriage

“From a reading of the note of the deceased, it is apparent that after the marriage engagement ceremony was performed, there was a lot of exchange of communications between the petitioner and the deceased, and ultimately, it was decided to cancel the marriage,” the court observed.

The order added that, attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, the act committed by the accused should have a direct nexus with the death.

Findings

• For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, the act committed by the accused should have a direct nexus with the death, and such an act should have either instigated or abetted the deceased to commit the suicide.
• The deceased has not made any allegation against the accused about their demanding dowry after the performance of the engagement ceremony between her and the petitioner.
• In the FIR, which is filed by her father, such an allegation is found, and even in the charge sheet, the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been invoked.
• Merely for the reason that, for certain reasons which are not forthcoming on record or which were beyond the control of the parties, the marriage was cancelled, it cannot be said that the accused had any intention from the inception to cancel the marriage and cheat the deceased and her family members.
• The prosecution has, therefore, not made out a case even for the offences punishable under Sections 417 (punishment of cheating) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) IPC.
• The trial court has failed to appreciate all aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting the discharge plea of the petitioner.

Background

• The petitioner was chargesheeted in a crime registered for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 417, 420 read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) IPC and Sections 3 (penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, based on the note of a woman who took her life in 2017.
• Then, the petitioner had filed a plea under Section 227 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) seeking discharge, which the trial court dismissed.
• Following this, he filed a plea in high court to set aside the trial court order of dismissing his discharge plea.
• The prosecution alleged that after the couple’s (petitioner and woman) engagement in 2016, the petitioner’s mother allegedly demanded dowry.
• When the family of the deceased woman refused to give dowry, the petitioner allegedly threatened the family to cancel the marriage.
• It is further alleged that when the family members of the deceased asked the petitioner not to cancel the marriage, he allegedly abused them and asked them to go and die, and thereafter, notices were issued regarding the cancellation of the marriage.
• After receipt of the said notices, the deceased had taken her life and allegedly had left behind a note.