Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Tranjeet Singh Gujral vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2023
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
Bench: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2147 of 2023.
BETWEEN:-
1. DR. TARANJEET SINGH GUJRAL S/O. LATE
SHRI POORAN SINGH GUJRAL, AGED
ABOUT - 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION -
DOCTOR, R/O. H.N.23 KATANGA,
LAXMIPURAM, DISTRICT - JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAKE GUMAR @ MANINDAR S/O. SHRI
GAJAYAB SINGH, AGED ABOUT - 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - PRIVATE JOB, R/O. 314
OPPOSITE RANJHI, POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT - JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH).
3. UDEEP REEL S/O. HARJINDER SINGH REEL,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION -
PRIVATE JOB, R/O. DEEWANBADA
MANEGAON, RANJHI, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH).
4. TAJANDAR SINGH LAMBA S/O. SHRI
JAGEEET SINGH LAMBA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION - PRIVATE JOB, R/O.
NEAR ASHIRWAD BARAT GHAR, AZAD
NAGAR, RANJHI, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH).
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI N. P. DUBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
POLICE STATION- RANJHI, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH).
2. GAURAV SAHU S/O. SHRI DINESH KUMAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 7/27/2023
4:24:40 PM
2
SAHU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPAITON - PRIVATE JOB, R/O. H.
NO.1460 BANGALI COLONY NEAR
ASHIRWAD BARAT GHAR,
CHANDRASHEKHAR AZAD WARD, P.S.
RANJHI, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI T. R. KURMI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 - STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 25-07-2023
Pronounced on : 27-07-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. By way of this criminal revision under Sections 397 / 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) in S. T. No.454/2022, whereby charges punishable under Sections 294, 452, 506 Part-II and 306 in alternative 306/34 of the IPC have been framed against them.
3. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2021 complainant Gaurav Sahu S/o. Dinesh Sahu lodged a report in the police station Ranjhi to the effect that on 12.10.2021 the deceased Saurabh Sahu who is real brother of the complainant has committed suicide by hanging himself with the help of nylon Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 3 rope. It is further case of the complainant that petitioner no.1 Dr. Taranjeet Gujral is running his clinic besides the shop of the deceased and petitioner no.1 was interested to run a medical shop in which the deceased was running a medical shop. It is alleged that for getting the shop vacated, petitioner no.1 built a pressure, harassed and annoyed the deceased. On the date of incident i.e. 12.10.2021 petitioner no.1 hurled filthy abuses to the deceased. However, on intervention, the matter was pacified but later-on, in the evening, petitioner no.1 called other accused persons by making a phone call and ultimately, all the accused persons pulled the deceased out of the shop and committed marpeet with him. It is alleged that on account of the alleged marpeet, the deceased was under depression and ultimately, he committed suicide by hanging himself with the help of nylon rope. On receiving information, a merg no.62/2021 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered and the matter was taken into inquiry. Dead-body Panchnama was prepared and dead-body was sent for postmortem after completing all due formalities. According to postmortem report, the cause of death is ante mortem hanging and its consequences. In the internal examination, large amount of alcohol was present with semi digested food material. The deceased died within 24 hours since postmortem examination. In the merg inquiry, it has been found that the accused persons harassed and tortured the deceased for getting the shop-in-question vacated for last two years and the deceased committed suicide because of harassment and acts of all the accused persons including the present petitioners. After completion of merg inquiry, FIR bearing Crime No.1093/2021 was registered at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur for commission of offence under Sections 452, 294, 506, 306, 34 of IPC.
4. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who on its turn, sent the case to the competent court for framing charges and Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 4 ultimately, learned 14th Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur vide impugned order dated 16.12.2022 framed the charges against the accused persons, against which, the present criminal revision has been preferred by them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that prima facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners /accused particularly an offence under Section 306 of IPC as there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. It is further argued that although, it is unfortunate that a life is lost, but there is no evidence at all which is proved on record to implicate any of the accused in abetment of suicide by deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659], Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371], Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, (2019) 10 SCC 778; Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & others Vs State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421; Mehraj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs State of UP' with Kalu Vs State of UP & others, (1994) 5 SCC 188; Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & others Vs State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501; Sudarshan & another Vs State of Maharashtra, (2014) 12 SCC 312; Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi)' (2009) 16 SCC 605 and Amalendu Pal Jhantu Vs State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and contended that the petitioners have not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the petitioners have played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.
6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners by Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 5 contending that there are sufficient evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. At the stage of framing of charge, detailed appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. Under these circumstances, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and other documents available on record.
8. Undoubtedly, at the time of framing of charge roving inquiry and meticulous appreciation of the evidence available on record is not required but at the same time while exercising the revisionary jurisdiction if it is found that the charge framed by the trial court is grossly erroneous or has been made without any material on record, is based on no evidence or has been arbitrarily or perversely exercised then revisionary jurisdiction can be exercised.
9. On going through the copy of the charge-sheet filed by the petitioners, it is gathered that during investigation police has recorded the statements of relatives of the deceased persons. Allegations against the petitioners in other statements are more or less similar. In nutshell, it is the defence of all such accused persons that they have not committed any offence and they are falsely implicated in the present case. As such, it is argued that all the accused be acquitted from all the charges alleged against them.
10. Before proceeding further it may be noted that it is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 6 accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. The provision of Section 107 is interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (AIR 2007 SC 2457) by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect :
"Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 7
12. Further in M. Mohan Vs. State (2011) 3 SCC 626 : AIR 2011 SC 1238) while dealing with the abetment, the Hon'ble SC has observed thus:
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
13. At this stage it would be very pertinent to refer and rely on the judgment in Gurcharan Singh vs The State Of Punjab AIR 2017 SC 74 decided by the three judges bench of Hon'ble SC where it was observed and held as follows:-
".....6. The Trial Court then posed a question to itself as to why a young lady with two small children would commit suicide unless she has been pushed to do so, by the circumstances in the matrimonial home. It was then observed that the expectation of a married woman will be love and affection and financial security at the hands of her husband and if her hopes are frustrated by the act or by willful negligence of the husband, it would constitute Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 8 abetment within the meaning of section 107 IPC, warranting conviction under section 306 IPC. With such reasoning, the Trial Court concluded that Shinder Kaur committed suicide when her hopes were frustrated by the act of her husband or alternatively, by his willful neglect. Thus, the Court itself was uncertain on the nature of the act to be attributed to the appellant. Moreover, even while noting that no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband and the in-laws is available, the learned Court assumed that section 306 IPC can be applied against the appellant. With such conjecture, while acquitting all three accused of the charged crime under section 304B and 498A of IPC, the husband was convicted under section 306 IPC.
7. In the resultant Criminal Appeal, the appellant contended that the conviction cannot be justified unless evidence disclosed some positive act or conduct of the accused, which might have compelled the deceased to commit suicide.................."
10. In order to give the finding of abetment under section 107 IPC, the accused should instigate a person either by act of omission or commission and only then, a case of abetment is made out.
14. Section 107 IPC defines "abetment" and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration : -
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 9"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
15. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.
16. The necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306 IPC has been considered in the case S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajanon decided on 12 August, 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6811 of 2009 where explaining the concept of abetment it has been written as under:-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a 1 (2010) 12 SCC 190 person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 10 commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms :
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707 time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 11 an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
18. Thus in this recent three judges bench judgment passed in Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients about provision of Section 306 of IPC relating to suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide. If there is no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof, the materials on record do not suggest even remotely any act of instigation etc. so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative and no such continuous and proximate conduct of the accused with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that she elected to liquidate herself as if to seek a practical alleviation from her unbearable earthly miseries, it could be said that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 of IPC have remained unproved and thus, the accused persons deserves to be acquitted.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 1219. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of MP, (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9 to 11 has observed as under:-
"9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in- law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased.
This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in which she had stated that Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 13 previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
20. In case of Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, [2012 (1) JT 478], it is observed that offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under section 107 of the Code. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 1421. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 while dealing with the term "instigation" held as under :-
"16. ... instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an 'instigation' may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word 'goad' is 'a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction' ... to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts...."Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 15
22. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that that accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty".
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as under:-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 16 thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
24. In Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing - Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 17 this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide - Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty- Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable".
25. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 18 cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 19 abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause 'thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.
15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we have examined the provision of clause thirdly which provides that a person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing when he intentionally does or omits to do anything in order to aid the commission of that thing. The Act further gives an idea as to who would be intentionally aiding by any act of doing of that thing when in Explanation 2 it is provided as follows:
"Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
16. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses namely firstly along with explanation 1 or more particularly thirdly with Explanation 2 to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 20 Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC."
26. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :
''35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ((2009) 16 SCC 605 to contend that the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the purposes of determining whether the offence under these provisions has been committed or not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No doubt that the word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC
618) to say that where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 21 direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.''
27. As Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making a person liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the 3 categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally act by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.
28. Now coming to the charge u/s 452 IPC, the essential ingredients of house-trespass are that (a) the accused must commit criminal-trespass that by unlawfully entering into or (b) by remaining on the property unlawfully after initial lawful entry; (c) that such trespass was in respect of a building, tent or vessel; and (d) that such building, tent or vessel was used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship or as a place for storing property.
29. As house-trespass is an aggravated form of criminal- trespass, which has been defined under Section 441 of the IPC and which is punishable under Section 447 of the IPC, it is, therefore, obvious that before a person is held to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC, it must be shown that in the alleged trespass, all the elements of 'criminal- trespass' or 'house- trespass' were present.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 2230. Further to constitute an offence under this section the property must be possessed by another person and not the trespasser himself. The law intends to protect the interest of the possessors and not the person who are owners. The law does not require the possession to be legal or lawful; all that is required to be proved is that the possession is actual and exclusive. The complainant may file a case of criminal trespass as possessors of a property even though the trespasser is the owner itself. Further, it is not mandatory for that person to be present at the time of criminal trespass, if the entry is made by the accused with the intention as mentioned in the section.
31. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
"503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
32. For making an offence under section 506 IPC, it is essential that the requirements of section 503 IPC are fulfilled. The requirements of section 503 are as follows :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 23(a) A person threatens another with injury.
(b) The injury is to-
(i) his person, reputation or property, or
(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(c) The intention is:-
(i) to cause harm to that person, or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, as means of avoiding, execution of such threats, or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of such threat.
33. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
34. In Amitabh Vs. NCT of Delhi 2000 CRI. L.J. 4772 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as follows:-
"The averments made in the FIR and in the case diary statement of the complainant against the petitioners also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under section 506/509 IPC. The threats alleged to have been given to the complainant Ms. Bharti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 24 by the petitioners do not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation in as much as the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere threat is no offence".
35. In Kanshi Ram Vs. State [86 (2000) DLT 609, 2000 (54) DRJ 112] it was observed:
".........10. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the complainant Isran Ahmed stated in his case diary statement that at the relevant time the petitioner had exhorted his security personnel to thrash the journalists. According to Isran Ahmed, the exact words used by the petitioner were "Maro Salon Ko".
Strangely enough, Isran Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. On the contrary the circumstances of the case clearly go to show that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. It is well settled that more threat is no offence. That being so the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the said evidence. ..."
36. In the case of Surinder Suri v. State of Haryana, 1996 SCC OnLine P&H 582 : (1996) 2 RCR (Cri) 701 (P&H), it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the gist of the offence (under Section 503 IPC, which Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 25 is punishable under Section 506 IPC) is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening. A threat, in order to be indictable must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As for instance mere vague allegation by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation.
37. Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
38. With this background of the laws, reverting back to the case in hand, a plain reading of the contents of the FIR as well as the statements of the relative of the deceased and the witnesses and on perusal of suicide note left by the deceased, it is apparent that all the witnesses have reiterated the same thing more or less. Further, in the postmortem, no sign of injury has been found on the body of the deceased, however, in the postmortem report it is mentioned that at the time of incident, the deceased was in inebriated condition and on internal examination of the dead-body, large amount of alcohol was found. In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even then it cannot be said that the petitioners have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Further, on perusal of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it is also evident that at the time of incident, the deceased was sitting in his shop and the accused persons dragged the deceased out of his shop and beaten him. Thus, the allegation that the accused persons entered into the shop of the deceased and committed marpeet, prima facie appears to be incorrect. In fact, the accused persons did not commit house- trespass having made preparation for causing hurt to the deceased. As per the contents of the FIR itself, the marpeet has been committed outside of the shop.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 2639. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this court, the petition has substance as there is no necessary averment in the FIR or material available in the charge sheet to come to the conclusion that the suicide was committed by deceased Saurabh Sahu on account of the act committed by the petitioners with a view to abet him to commit suicide. Being close relatives of the deceased, the relevant witnesses are supposed to support the case of the deceased. But the act cannot be considered for any stretch of imagination that they were intended to abet the deceased to commit suicide. If the deceased was unable to bear tension or pressure as alleged to have been given by the accused persons then certainly he or his family members before committal of suicide by the deceased, could have lodged a report in this regard but nothing has been done. The alleged act of the petitioners cannot be considered that it was of such nature that the deceased had no other option to commit suicide. Apart from it, there is no evidence on which time the aforesaid note was written by the deceased, therefore, they cannot be considered in proximity of the death. On other words it cannot be said that the so called pressure was the cause of death of the deceased.
40. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626, in which the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC have been discussed and clarified. The relevant paras no. 36 to 45 of the judgment are reproduced here as under : -
36. We would like to deal with the concept of 'abetment'.
Section 306 of the Code deals with 'abetment of suicide' which reads as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 27"306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
37. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and `cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of I.P.C.
39. `Abetment of a thing' has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 28 an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
40. Learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which a three-Judge Bench of this court had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like".
Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.
41.This Court in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 29 instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.
42. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 30 such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
43. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605, had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's sociability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM 31 active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down in the aforesaid case, prima facie there is no sufficient material to prosecute the petitioners for commission of alleged offences.
42. As a result, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed in S.T. No.454/2022 framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 294, 452, 506 Part-II and 306 in alternative 306/34 of IPC, is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners and the petitioners are discharged from the alleged charges.
43. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and its compliance.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE JP/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:24:40 PM