Section 306, 340, 342 , 380, 406 & 420 of Indian Panel Code 1860

Recently as per sources from media, father of Actor Shushant Singh rajput has made a police complaint under Section 306, 340, 342, 380, 406 & 420,

What these sections say about in Indian Panel Code.

Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide

Section 340 & 342 - Wrongful confinement

Section 380-  Theft in Dwelling House

Section 406- Criminal Breach of Trust

Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide)

Abetment of suicide is cognizable and Non-Bailable offence which punishment of this offence is up to 10 years and fine

Those who aid and abet the commission of suicide by the hand of the person himself who commits suicide may be punished under this section.

When another person, at the request of or with the consent of the person who wants to commit suicide, has killed that person, he is guilty of 'homicide by consent' which is one of the forms of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The latter is covered by an exception under Section 5 to Sec. 300 of Indian Panel Code and is punishable under Sec. 304.

The case of physician-assisted, suicide, consent killing or euthanasia, and mercy killing”  viz. in respect of terminally ill patients (persistent vegetative state) are covered by Sec. 304 and not Sec. 306. It may be noted, “right to die” or 'right to suicide' is not recognized in India and, thus, euthanasia is illegal in India.

B, by instigation, voluntarily causes C, a person of 18 years to commit suicide. B will be liable under section 306.

Similarly, those who assist a Hindu widow in becoming sati will be guilty of abetment of suicide cruelty may not by itself amount to abetment for suicide. A case of mental torture of this kind, even if the girl does not commit suicide, would amount to an offence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 A IPC.  Further, where a married girl commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, the court may presume that her husband and relatives of her husband had abetted her to commit suicide Under Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act, All the sections are welcome measures to combat the ever-growing menace of dowry death.

If may be noted that a person who “attempts” to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under section 309, whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide should necessarily have been committed. Nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide (Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2826)

The offence under section 306 could not be said to be a minor offence in relation to section to section 302 (Sangaraboina Sreenu vs State of AP 1997 CrLJ 3955 SC )

Before section 306 can be acted upon, there must be clear proof of the fact the death of question was a suicidal death ( Wazir Chand vs  State of Haryana AIR 1989 SC 378) Thus, accidental death is not covered by section 306 of Indian Panel Code.  

Section 306 is an instance of “Constructive homicide” that is the creation of circumstances by the accused in such a way that a led a victim to end his own life. Instigation may be by word or conduct. The constitutional validity of this section

Has been upheld by Supreme Court in Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab AIR  1996 SC 946), in which case the court also upheld the constitutional validity of section 309(Attempt to commit suicide) .

Section 306 of Indian Panel Code is based on the public policy that nobody should involve himself in, or instigate or aid , the commission of a crime

Abetment of Suicide through Dowry Demand

Dowry demand has invariably been linked to the abetment of suicide in a number of cases. In Brij Lal v Prem Chand (AIR 1989 SC 1661), the husband persistently demanded money from his wife and quarreled with her every day over the same thing. On a fateful day, she reacted by saying that death would be better than that state of life. He responded by saying that he would feel relieved if she died that very day. She set herself afire immediately thereafter. The court held him to be guilty of instigating her to commit suicide.

In State of Punjab v Igbal Singh, 1991 CrLJ 1897 (SC), the relationship between the husband and wife was strained over dowry even to the extent that the wife had sought police protection apprehending danger to her life. One day she set herself and her three children ablaze at the residence of her husband. Before putting an end to her life, she had left a note stating that her husband was demanding

Money by way of additional dowry and was ill-treating her under the influence of alcohol. She had also stated that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law also conspired and made false accusations against her and had also conspired to kill her on one night by sprinkling kerosene petrol on her but their plan misfired. It was held that the husband was responsible for creating circumstances that provoked or forced the wife to commit suicide and he was, therefore, liable to be convicted under Sec. 306.

Sec. 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust –

Criminal breach of trust means “betrayal”   Anyone who in any manner he has taken the property under his authority, if does any misappropriate or alter in that property for purpose of his own use or uses dishonestly or destroy that property in violation of any direction of law, defined  the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any valid contract, whether expressly  or impliedly, which he has made by touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”

For example, “A”

given his Titan wrist to “B” for a short time, Now “B” alters in watch said that it is of mine. You have not given any watch. Now B is an accused of Criminal Breach of trust

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust

1. There should be a handing over by one person to another of the property (movable or immovable), or with any control over property;
2. Such any movable or immovable property handed over to another must be in the trust;
3. There must have been a misappropriation or conversion to his own use by the person who received the property in trust;

Dishonest intention

It is the essence of this offence, which makes it different from civil breach of trust. It is the mental act of fraudulent misappropriation that demarcates an act of embezzlement  which is a civil wrong from the offence of criminal breach of trust (Rajib Lochan Bebani v State of Orissa AIR 1981 SC 1646).

Negligence is not a dishonest intention. The acts constituting a criminal breach of trust must have been done deliberately or intentionally and not by accident or inadvertence (Kedarnath AIR 1965 AII 233)

In case of  R. Venkatkrishnan v CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737, the bank officials made available public money to a private party contrary to statutory provisions and departmental instructions. It was held that dishonest intention was evident from the facts and circumstances of the case. There is a criminal breach of trust even if the money was subsequently recovered and banks did not suffer any monetary loss.

 Entrusted with property, or dominion over the property - The expression

entrustment includes all cases in which property is voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and is dishonestly disposed of contrary to the terms on which possession has been handed over (Som Nath v State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 SC 1490).

The expression 'entrustment' contemplates the creation of a relationship whereby the owner of property makes it over to another person to be retained by him until a certain contingency arises entrustment implies custody or management of the property for some purpose but may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right (Lake v Simmons (1927) AC 487).

Entrustment being the first ingredient of breach of trust, if it is missing, there would be no criminal breach of trust [V.R. Dalal v Yougendra Naranji Thakkar (2008) 15 SCC 625).

Misappropriation or conversion to one's own use –

This offence consists of any of the four positive acts viz. misappropriation,

conversion, user, or, disposal of property. A user in order to be an offence under Sec. 405 must cause substantial or appreciable loss to the owner of the property or gain to the accused.

Once it is shown that money was given to the accused or was received by him for a particular purpose, and same was not used for that purpose, and the same was declined to return by him in accordance with his duty or if he failed to account for it, he will be presumed that misappropriation has been done by accused. It is an offence of criminal breach of trust.

Example

A asks B, a jeweller, to make him a gold ring and pays him the cost of the gold required for the ring B neither delivers the ring nor returns the money.

B would be liable under Sec. 405.

 

Section 380 (Theft in dwelling house)

In this section there be two words which a very important to understand, “the first dwelling, The meaning dwelling is a place where a person lives permanently or temporarily

It might be any residential house also or any temporarily live for sort time such if for being we take rest room in any railway station  those cove also in dwelling house .

Second word “Custody of property “means,   when  a theft committed in storage type place such warehouse or  warehouse type property , 

Even any roof of building have given the purpose of Storage, in that property is also considers as custody of property 

So as per this section

Any person who does an offence of theft in any building, tent, or vessel and such building, tent or vessel is used as a human residential or used for the custody of property shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine also.

Section 380 is cognizable and Non-Bailable 

Section 340 & 342 - Wrongful confinement           restraint

Meaning or wrongful confinement means to stop any person in any place in the wrong way”  but if any person has legal right to do then no wrongful.

For example, Police have the right to restrain any person in accordance to given right in crpc.

Example -   A locks B in a room so that B cannot come out , A is accused of Wrongful confinement.

A  , places an armed person in front of the building and instructs if C comes out from this building fire him, Now C is not coming out from this building as he has threatened to fire when will come out. Here A restrained to C in a building, he has committed a offence of wrongful confinement.

Section 340 is a cognizable and Bailable offence and punishment is given under  section 342 of Indian Panel code, a person who commits an offence wrongful confinement shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine of up to  RS 1000 or both

Ingredients of Wrongful confinement

1. There must be restrained of person
2. And restrain shall be such type that person is prevented from proceeding beyond certain circumstances limits