Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 November, 2023
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 492 of 2020
Rohit Singh Thakur S/o Santosh Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years
R/o Kapil Nagar Naya Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Housing Board Colony, Saddu Sector 8
H. No. HIF- 10, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: S.H.O. Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State/Non-applicants : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07.11.2023
1. The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") against an order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 07/2020 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Rohit Singh Thakur), whereby the charge has been framed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The order passed by the trial Court has been further referred to as "order in question".
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 2
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that V. Meenakshi (deceased) had a love affair with the applicant/accused for 05 years. The applicant/accused continued to establish a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and finally, he refused to marry. Due to this, V. Meenakshi committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of a saree on a ceiling fan in the room of the applicant/accused on 09.04.2018. After that Crime No.126/2018 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC at Police Station-Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, and after the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicant, thereafter, after hearing both the parties order in question has been passed.
3. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that there is no evidence of abetment, conspiracy and instigation for suicide, so no case is made out for abetment of suicide against the applicant. In the entire prosecution case, there is no evidence of abetment against the applicant. The learned trial court without appreciating the material available on record charged the applicant for the said offence which is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the applicant may be discharged of the offence. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Ors. Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2181 of 2009 on 18.10.2019. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matters of Ashish Kumar Rajwade @ Rinku v. State of Chhattisgarh Passed in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2022 on 13.05.2022, Vishesh Kumar Bhawte & Ors. v. State of Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 3 Chhattisgarh Passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1286 of 2019 on 24.05.2019, Sandeep Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Passed in W.P.Cr. No. 1075 of 2019 on 03.02.2020 & Kewal Krishnakant Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh Passed in Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2018 on 05.03.2019.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that it is clear from the evidence the deceased (V. Meenakshi) was continuously physically exploited by the applicant/accused on a false promise of marriage and finally, he refused to marry her, due to which she has committed suicide in the room of the accused/applicant as a result of his abetment. Thus, there is ample evidence against the applicant for the said offence. Therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. In support of his argument he place reliance in the matters of Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 52 and in the matter of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460.
5. The status report was obtained from the trial court. The Status report dated 28.10.2023 received from Special Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh is evident that the matter is currently pending in that court. There was a total of 19 witnesses in the prosecution, out of which a total of 09 Witnesses have been examined. A total of 4 Witnesses have been given up. A total of 6 Witnesses are yet to be examined and an attempt is being made to resolve the case as early as possible.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 4 documents available in the case with utmost circumspection.
7. The question in the present case is as to whether considering the entire material available on record to be correct and true, a prima facie case for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.
8. Before considering the facts of the instant case, it appears necessary to have a look on the provisions contained under Section 306 of the IPC, which reads thus:-
"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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
9. Abetment has been defined in 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 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.
* * * *
* * * *
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."
10. The Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 5 306 of the IPC in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 and held as under :-
"9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. [(1995) Supp. (3) SCC 438], the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide."
11. In case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court, while considering the conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate where she had stated that 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, the Supreme Court held as under :-
"20. ........A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. .........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 of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 6
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
13. In case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC, 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 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 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 Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 7 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. In case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under :-
"25. 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 is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
15. In case of M. Mohan v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Supreme Court has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence, by observing as under :-
"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 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."
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 8
16. In case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433, the Supreme Court has pointed out the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC i.e. suicidal death and abetment and held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Paras 21, 28 and 29, being relevant, are extracted below :-
"21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are 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 this 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, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another [(1994) 1 SCC 73] that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.[(2010) 1 SCC 707].
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 9
29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190]."
17. In case of State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 1201, the accused therein was charged for offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the allegation that the accused and his parents abused deceased and stigmatized her as call girl. The Supreme Court quashed the charges under Section 306 of the IPC holding that no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the accused persons to deceased to commit suicide and observed in para 11 as under :-
"11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements recorded during the investigation. Even according to the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on record, we are also of the view that the present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents. There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [(1995) Supp. (3) SCC 438 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. In such circumstances, in the Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 10 aforesaid judgment this Court held that Sessions Judge erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial and quashed the proceedings."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Section 107 and 306 of the IPC in case of M. Arjunan (supra) and held as under :-
"7. .........however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide........."
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. in case of Anil Kumar Bhunja (supra) and held as under :-
"18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [AIR (1977) SC 2018], the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
20. In case of Amit Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the ''record of the case'' and Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 11 documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is a expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code."
21. Considering the present case, in the light of the above judgments, it is importantly revealed that the place of suicide by V. Meenakshi (deceased) is the residence of the applicant/accused Rohit Sing Thakur who is going to clarify this that at the last moment she was in the room of the applicant/accused. Apart from this, according to the evidence compiled by the police, the statement of the brother of V. Meenakshi (deceased) V. Girish, father V. Rajkumar, maternal uncle K. Ramanna, friend Jyoti Bagh alias Priya and friend Kavita Harpal were given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which it has clearly compiled evidence that V. Meenakshi (deceased) had a love affair with the accused/applicant for many years and has also been reported to have a physical relationship, but later on the applicant/accused refused to marry while physical relations were established on promise of marriage and after refusing to marry, V. Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:28086 12 Meenakshi (deceased) started living in depression and he committed suicide during that time.
22. The crime of abetment is not a momentary, but also a crime of mental pressure and in this case, on the basis of the evidence compiled by the police in the investigation, prima facie it cannot be said that the abetment of suicide against the applicant/accused is not there, but the basis of the presumpting of the entire prosecution is available in the opinion of the court against the applicant/accused. In addition, the trial, in the trial court is also at the final stage. In such a situation, the applicant/accused does not get the benefit of the cited judgments by the applicant due to the variation of facts and in view of the nature of the compiled evidence, no illegality or perversity is found in the order passed by the trial court.
23. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, this criminal revision petition is not found acceptable and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu