Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Dhankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2017
CRR-1014-2017
(VIJAY KUMAR DHANKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
12-07-2017
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Pandey, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 18/11/2016 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offences under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC.
Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are that, the complainant/Ritu Kumari lodged a report that the accused, her senior officer called her to the office and made her sit outside for one and a half hour. After sometime, she was called in and she was made to stand near by his chair. He scolded her for not bringing the keys of the scooty. There was an altercation between her. The accused Vijay Kumar Dhankar allegedly used criminal force. The untoward behaviour of Vijay Kumar Dhankar and molestation, she managed to go to the hostel and informed the incident to one Surendra Singh. She tried to commit suicide by the official revolver issued by her. For treatment of the injury received by her by the fire arm, she was taken to hospital. Her dying declaration was recorded, later, she recovered. Offences under Sections 354 (A) (1) (4), 354(d) (1) (1) and 354 of IPC was registered against the accused Vijay Kumar Dhankar. After filing charge-sheet, Criminal Case No.308/2015 was registered. After charges have been framed, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded.
During this proceeding, an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution contending that offence under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC is made out against the accused/Petitioner, Vijay Kumar Dhankar. Learned trial Court having heard the parties passed the impugned order dated 18/11/2016, wherein it has been held that, accused has committed offence under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC and non-bailable warrant has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out when commission of suicide takes place. The evidence available on record show that the complainant/Ritu Kumari has not committed suicide, though she attempted to commit suicide. Therefore, order dated 18/11/2016 is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the allegations made by the complainant against the petitioners is totally false and fabricated. Complainant was very negligent and careless in attending her duties. When the petitioner, being an officer, asked her the reason of being late, he has been victimized by the concocted story. Had there been attempt to commit suicide by service revolver on account of personal frustration. She could have been charged for offence under Section 309 of IPC. The complainant just to save herself from the prosecution, concocted the story and levelled charges against the petitioner. Offences under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC is made out. Therefore, order dated 18/11/2016 be set aside.
Learned GA for the respondent/State opposing the contentions submitted that Section 306 of IPC provides punishment for abetment to commit suicide. If there is no abetment, there is no question of offence under Section 306 coming into play. But, as the complainant/prosecutrix attempted to commit suicide and even after the fire arm injury, she remained alive. Therefore, it is clear cut case under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC.
Perused the police diary and the order impugned.
Section 511 of IPC provides for punishment for attempting to commit offence, which are punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment for causing such an offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act for commission of offence and where there is no express provision in the IPC, for the punishment for such an attempt.
Thus, it is clear that the provision makes "attempt to commit offence" punishable. The offence attempted should be one punishable by the IPC with imprisonment. The conditions stipulated in the provision for completion of the said offence are one. (1) The offender should have done some act towards the commission of the main offence; (2) Such an attempt is not expressly covered as a penal provision elsewhere in the Code. The provision of Section 306 of the IPC provides, punishment for abetment for suicide. The essential ingredients are, (i) that any person committed suicide; (ii) that such a commission of suicide by the consequences of an abetment; and (iii) that the abetment was made by the accused.
Counsel for the petitioner suggested that it could be offence under Section 116 and not under Section 511. In this regard, it would be appropriate to mention here that, Section 116 of IPC is with regard to "abetment of offence punishment with imprisonment and if offence be not committed". The essential ingredients of Section 116 are:- (i) offence was abetted; (ii) that offence was not committed, in consequence of abetment; (iii) that there is no express provision in penal code to punish such abetment and (iv) the offence abetted is punishable with imprisonment.
In view of the above ingredients, it can be said that, crux of offence under Section 306 of IPC itself is an abetment. If, there is no abetment, there is no question for offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is conceivable to have abetted an offence of abetment. Hence, there cannot be an offence under Section 116 read with 306 of IPC. Therefore, offence under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC cannot be ruled out.
In every crime, there is firstly, intention to commit it; secondly, preparation to commit it; thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly commits the act. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete but the law punishes the person attempting the act. An "attempt" is made punishable because every attempt although it fails success must creates alarm which of itself, as an injury and the moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had committed the crime. The prosecutrix, Ritu Kumari tried to commit suicide though she was saved, therefore, offence under Section 306 of IPC was not complete. Hence, offence under Section 306 read with Section 511 of IPC cannot be ruled out. In this regard, the approach of the learned JMFC cannot be said to be illegal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court decided in Shiv Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. reported as 2003 Cr.L.J 1835 and Satvir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court an Appeal (Criminal) 1319/1998 decided on 27/09/2001 related to the domestic quarrel and offence under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 304-B of IPC, therefore, the ratio of those cases cannot be applied in the present case.
In the circumstances prevailed in the case, this Court considered that the order impugned does not suffer from any irregularity, therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS