top of page

whether calling as “call girl” is enough to frame the charge u/s.306 IPC? When “in

STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. INDRAJIT KUNDU AND OTHERS – Criminal Appeal No. 2181 of 2009 – Decided on : 18-10-2019

The matter was decided by a Bench Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R. Subhash held calling a women ‘Call Girl’ is not suffice to frame charge against the accused. The Apex Court upheld the order of the high court which set aside the impugned order of the sessions court. It observed:

‘In the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide’

There were two suicide notes. In one suicide note, the deceased has stated that parents of first respondent abused her in silly words by calling her a call-girl. In another note, which was addressed to the first respondent, has stated that the father of first respondent stigmatized her as a call-girl and first respondent has not responded to such utterances.

The High Court allowed the application by setting aside the order of the Trial Court and discharged the respondents-accused from the charge. Further the High Court Held that

‘By referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, “to go and die” does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents’

The Supreme Court considered its judgment in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P [(2002) 5 SCC371] andalso stated:

“In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr. [3 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] 8, this Court while considering utterances like “to go and die” during the quarrel between husband and wife, uttered by husband held that utterances of such words are not direct cause for committing suicide”

The Supreme Court do not find any merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court and thus dismissed it.

when “instigation” may be inferred? – explained as follows:

The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the State in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court has held that where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. To draw the inference of instigation it all depends on facts and circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case. As such we are of the view that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the State would not assist in supporting his arguments.

cases referred:

Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2009) 16 SCC 605

Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618

Soma Chakravarty vs. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403

Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P, (2002) 5 SCC 371

Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4

Advocates argued:

Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Advocate, for M/S. PLR Chambers and Co., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. full judgment here: s.306Download



bottom of page