Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI, J
CRR No. 654/2017
Pawan S/o Shri Badrilalji Sule
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Sr. Counel along with
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta,counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, GA for the respondent / State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( Passed on 09/03/2018) The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 12/05/2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Mhow, District - Indore in session trial No. 774/2015, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for commission of the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code ( in short " IPC" ).
2 Briefly stating the facts are that on 07/06/2015 at about 4.00 am at village -Kodariya, Tehsil-Mhow, Dist-Indore, one Omprakash S/o Mangilal Patidar committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. According to the prosecution story, the deceased Omprakash took loan of Rs. 3 lacs from the applicant and the applicant persistently pressurized the deceased for repayment of the loan amount.
1HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH On the pressure of the applicant / accused, the deceased executed a sale deed of his plot in favour of the applicant on 27/05/2015 for partly sum of Rs. 9,80,000/-, however, the actual price of the plot was Rs. 20 lacs. The police recovered dying declaration of the deceased Omprakash and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the basis of which, the police registered FIR for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC at Crime no. 18//2015 on 10/06/2015. The police arrested the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3 Learned trial Court, after perusal of entire material on record , by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that prima-facie, charge under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present revision before this Court.
4 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and perused the records.
5 It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the sole document, on which the prosecution case rests is the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased Omprakash before committing suicide, wherein he has only stated that applicant Pawan Sule should have been responsible for his death, because he had pressurized him for 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH transfer of title of the plot in his favour. The actual value of the plot was Rs. 20 lacs, however, the applicant compelled him to sell his plot for consideration of amount of Rs. 12,84,100/-, whereas the deceased has taken loan of Rs. 3 lacs only from the applicant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is nowhere stated in the alleged suicide note that the applicant / accused had ever instigated or provoked the deceased Omprakash for commission of suicide and if the applicant / accused had demanded any loan amount from the deceased asking him to execute the sale deed of his plot, then by his act itself, ingredients of instigation for commission of suicide is lacking and the offence under section 306 of IPC cannot be made out against the applicant. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC.
6 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Pappu @ Shankarlal Soni Vs. State of M.P reported in 2017(1) MPLJ ( Cri) 47, State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh reported in AIR 1991 SC 1532, Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which it is laid down that if ingredients of commission of suicide, which is defined under section 107 of IPC are not proved by the prosecution, then certainly, charge under section 306 of IPC cannot be framed.. Abetment to 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH commit suicide is an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. Expression " Abetment " has been defined in section 107 of IPC, 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.
7 In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 ( Suppl) Cr.L.R ( SC) 261 / (2010) 1 SCC 750 , Hon'ble Supreme 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 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In order to convict a persons 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 leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he committs 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 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable."
The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 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 the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she commits suicide."
In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR2002 SC 1998, the accused was charged under section 306 of IPC for abeting his brother-in-law to 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH commit suicide. The accused allegedly said to him to " go and die". The deceased left behind a suicide note stating that the accused is responsible for his death. It was held that the word " go and die" do not constitute instigation for mens ria of offence under section 306 of IPC 8 On perusal of the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased Omprakash, it is apparent that the deceased had taken loan of Rs. 3 lacs from the applicant / accused , however, under the pressure, he was forced to execute registry of his plot in favour of the applicant at the consideration of amount of Rs 12,84,100/- which was actually valued at Rs. 20 lacs. From the suicide note, it does not appear that the applicant had harassed the deceased to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. The allegation made against the applicant in the suicide note or in the statements of the witnesses, even if taken true at their face value does not prima-facie indicate that the applicant by positive act on his part incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the aforesaid premises continuation of the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC will be nothing, but exercise in futility 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH 9 In the aforesaid premises, prima-facie, no charge under section 306 of IPC is hereby made out against the applicant.
10 Consequently, present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12/05/2017 framing charge under section 306 of IPC against the applicant is set aside and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charge.
C c as per rules.
(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2018.03.11 14:25:16 +05'30'