Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurishankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2017
Cr.R. No.2008/2016
06.02.2017
Shri B.J. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Damoh, District Damoh, in S.T.No.2100061/2015, whereby learned Sessions Judge has framed charge for offence punishable under Section 306/34 of I.P.C.
The facts of the present case in nutshell are that on the date of incident i.e. 24.12.2015, applicants have directed the deceased to vacate the house, but the deceased did not vacate the premises. Thereafter, she went to her room, poured kerosene and set fire on herself. She sustained burn injuries, she was admitted in the hospital but later on, she died on 17.1.2016. The report of the incident was lodged by Sangita, thereupon Marg No.12/2016 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., by the Dehat Police Damoh, District Damoh. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence.
Learned Sessions Judge heard the matter and passed a laconic order holding that prima facie case for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC is made out against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased was residing in the house of husband of petitioner No.2 as tenant, who insisted to vacate the house and being owner of the house, the petitioner can direct the tenant/deceased to vacate his house. Therefore, offence under Section 306/34 of IPC cannot be made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that there is no material evidence available against the petitioners to implicate them in the present case. The learned trial Court has not properly adduced the meticulous evidence and came to an erroneous conclusion while framing of charge as aforesaid, against the petitioners. He further submits that even on accepting the prosecution case in totality, no offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the order impugned passed by learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that because of provocation of petitioners, the deceased had taken drastic step and committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting up fire on herself.
I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to understand the provision of Section 306 of IPC, which reads as under :-
"306. Abetment of Suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes "abetment". "Abetment" has been defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as follows :-
"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 1 : A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate 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."
In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court has held as under :-
"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 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 or anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In Ved Prakash v. State of M. P. 1995 M.P.L.J. 458 it has been observed that :-
a person is said to `instigate' another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement and the word `instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V. State of M.P., 2002 (2) JLJ 275 (SC), it has been held that "abetment of suicide - abusive words hurled at deceased not direct cause of suicide - charge for offence under cannot be framed."
In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327, the Apex Court has held as under :-
"Section 107 - Abetment - Involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding person to do certain thing - some positive act by accused - Essential to constitute abetment."
In the case of Abdul Hanif V. State of M.P., 2002 (II) MPWN 12, it has been reiterated that merely threatening or beating by the accused persons to the deceased does not constitute any instigation for commission of suicide.
Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, offence under Section 306 of the IPC, is not made out against the petitioners.
The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.6.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Damoh, District Damoh, in S.T.No.2100061/2015, so far as it pertains to the petitioners is set aside. However, it is observed that charges may be framed for other offences.
(H.P. Singh) JUDGE A.Praj.