Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeta Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-934-2017 & CRR-1580-2017
(YASIR & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M.P.) &
(NEETA SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Jabalpur Dated: 01/02/2018
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners
(Cr.R. No. 934/2017).
Shri K.S. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner (Cr.R.
No. 1508/2017).
Shri C.K. Mishra, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Both the matters pertains to order dated 09.11.2016 passed by 16th A.S.J., Bhopal, in S.T. No. 843/2016, whereby the trial Court has framed charges under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C., against the petitioners and other co- accused Manjot @ Lucky Gandhi and Tekchand Singh. Both these revisions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. have been filed to assail the above order. Hence, heard together and are being disposed by this conman order.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the prosecution story in brief is that Shri Rishabh Dev Tripathi committed suicide on 23/12/2015, by hanging himself. The postmortem report reveal that he died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, He left a suicide note dated 03.12.2015 and letter dated 15.12.2015 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Bhopal containing allegations against the accused persons, including the present petitioners. The petitioners- Yasir Khan and Md. Faiz Ahmed advanced loan to the deceased. They exerted pressure for demanding the money from time to time. Because of which the deceased was perturbed and felt harassed. Because of this harassment caused to the deceased by the accused persons, he committed suicide. Leaving a suicide note and hanged himself to death
3. Police after due to investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Learned trial Court vide order impugned framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
4. The petitioners preferred these revisions, on the ground that the petitioners are innocent even if the whole prosecution story is believed as it is, even then no offence is made out against the petitioners. The framing of charge is contrary to material available on record. The the suicide note was written on 03.12.2015, but the deceased committed suicide on 23.12.2015. No specific reason was shown in the suicide note about the delay in commission of suicide. An agreement was entered by the deceased with petitioners Yasir Khan and Md. Faiz regarding the sale of the House No. E-4/203, Arera Colony, Bhopal. The deceased also received advance money for this transaction. Agreement was executed on 26.08.2015.
5. It is also stated that, the Petitioner-Seema Tripathi the sister-in-law of the deceased had an agreement with the deceased Co-accused Mahendra Singh Khanuja. is the relative of the petitioner- Manjot @ Lucky Gandhi, But he has no concerned about this transaction. This agreement was also made 11 months prior to the incident. The petitioner- Neeta Sharma claimed that in the suicide note dated 03.12.2015, the deceased mentioned the names of the accused persons but there is no mention of harassing and torturing him. There was no reason for the petitioner to abate the commission of suicide. The framing of charge against the petitioners would result of miscarriage of justice.
6. The petitioners further pray that no offence of any kind is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 09.11.2016. passed in Session Trial No. 843/2016 be set aside.
7. Counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions and submits that the petitioners are the persons responsible for the death of Rishabh Dev Tripath. Therefore the order impugned did not call for any interference.
8. Heard the counsel, perused the police diary. Document dated 15.01.2015 is a sale agreement executed between Seema Tripathi and Mahendra Singh Khanuja. The document of mutual agreement is also executed by the deceased-Shri Rishabh Dev Tripathi with accused-Yasir Khan and Md. Faiz Ahmad. In the suicide note dated 03.12.2015 deceased wrote:-
^^eq>s ekQ djuk Daddy, Bhabhi, Mansi, Akku, Chotuji,,Didi, Bhabhi dh mammy, Papa dh mammy. eSa Rishabh Dev Tripathi is going to quit from my life. eSa lwn[kskjksa ,oa fe=ksa ls =Lr gks pqdk gwWA lwn[kksjksa dks ewyèku ls pkj xquk T;knk ns pqdk gwWA nwljs lwn[kksj ;k fe= ls ysdj fQj Hkh mudk isV ugha Hkj jgkA vc fe=x.k Hkh ihNs iM+ jgs dh okil djks t:jr gS iSlksa dhA eSaus bl nyny esa Qalus ds ckn cSad ls _.k ysus ds laca èk esa iz;kl Hkh fd;s cksgksrA ij esjh Profile Clear gksus ds ckotwn C;kt ij C;kt Hkjus ds dkj.k ewY; bruk cM x;k gS bu lwn[kksjksa ds dkj.k Hkh dke ugha gks ik jgkA bu lwn[kksjksa esa ls lcus eq>ls Bank Cheques ys j[ks gSa dqN ds ikl esjs Äj dh Registry Hkh gS vr% ljdkj ls xqgkj gS esjs lkjs Cheques & Registry (Original) esjs ifjokj dks fnyokbZ tk,A esjs fe=ksa us esjh cgqr enn dh gS eSa muds fy, 'kqdzxqtkj gwWa ysfdu vkt ds ckn ;gh muesa ls fdlh us Hkh esjs ifjokj ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dh èkujkf'k ;k dksbZ vkSj oLrq dh ekax djrk gS rks mls esjh Hkh ekSr dk ftEesnkj ekuk tk,A (Sorry to all my friends) vkSj Hkfo"; esa esjs ifjokj dks tSls& Daddy, Bhabhi, Mansi, Akku, Chotu, Papa (sasurji), Mammy (Sasu maa), Didi, Jijaji (Ajay Tiwari), Gouri(Bhanji.), Shubhi (Bhanji) etc. Ko dksbZ Hkh vizR;kf'kr 'kkjhfjd gkuh ;k vizR;kf'kr ÄVuk gksrh gS] rks ;s lc yksx gh ftEesnkj gksaxsA eSa cksgksr ekufld izrkfM+r gksdj ;g dne mBk jgk gwWa blds ftEesnkj dqN esjs fe=x.k gSa oks xyr ugha vHkh rd ysfdu lwn[kksjksa ds uke fuEukuqlkj gSaA (1)Yaasir Khan- 7772830848 nksuksa ,d fnu nksigj (2) Mohammad Faiz- 9893645952 04%00 P.M ij esjs Äj ds ckgj /kedh nsdj x, jksM ij dh ;kfn ijlksa 04%00 P.M ;kuh 05@12@2015 rd gesa iSls ugha feys rks ge rqEgsa ;gha ekj Mkysaxs ;k ns[k ysuk ge D;k dj ldrs A (3) T.C. Singh- 9827292822 ¼bUgksaus eq>s /kedh nh dh 10 yM+ds ysdj rqEgkjs Äj vk tkÅaxk dy ;kuh 4@12@2015 dks ;fn iSls ugha fn;s rks 7%23 P.M ij call ij cksyk 03@12@2015 dksA½ (4) Late Mrs. Ashok Sharma's wife Mrs. Neeta Sharma- 8989011049.
Manjoot Gandhi (Lucky Gandhi) Mb. No. 9826889900.
eSa uk fraud gwa uk csbZeku bu yksxksa dh otg ls eSaus C;kt ij C;kt Hkjk dh ifjokj [kq'k jgs ij /klrk pyk x;kA vc eSa viuk thou nsus tk jgk gwa ftlls esjk ifjokj 'kk;n [kq'kgky jgsA Please bUlkQ nsuk Hkxoku & ljdkj Sorry Akku & Chotu Love You cgksr vkalw vk jgs cPpksa rqEgsa NksM+rs gq,A Sorry, Sorry, Sorry ekQ dj Dena."
9. The plain reading of this suicide note show that the accused persons have obtained blank cheques from the deceased. In the suicide note, the deceased did not write any harassment or cruelty caused to him by the petitioners. It is also not proper to assume that the petitioner, who allegedly given loan to the deceased would instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide for their loan amount in at stake. The petitioner would not intend to bring about suicide of his borrower. The suicide note and the FIR failed to depict any intention of the accused persons. The suicide note or the FIR, if is believed in its entirety do not prima facie constitute offence under Section 306 of the IPC
10. In the case of Ram Naresh and Another Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2002(2) M.P.H.T. 183 it is held that:-
"The accused persons were charge-
sheeted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal) death.
However, it was found that none of the accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund/repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could lhave lodged a report againt accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report. In lthat case, he could have moved higher officials. But instead of taking this legal and legitimat action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged commission of the offence was made out against the accused persons."
11. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626, had occasioned to analyze the word "abetment to suicide" held as under :-
"Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306-- Abetment-- Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing- Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306- Required on active act or direct act, which let the deceased to commit suicide seeking no option an this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
12. In the case of Ankit Gupta Vs. State of m.P. 2016 (2) MPWN 78, when there was demand of money earlier borrowed by the deceased, the deceased committed suicide, it was held that there was no mens rea.
13. In the case of Munnalal Vs. State 2009 (3) MPWN 78, loan was given to the deceased. The deceased on demand of loan could not resist the pressure, committed suicide.
14. In the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of M.P. 2007 (2) MPWN 26, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that merely demand of advance money or pressurizing by the accused persons to the deceased for the demand does not itself prove the intention for commission of offence.
15. Even if the entire prosecution story is taken to be true the ingredients of "abetment to commit suicide" is completely missing. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the petition Element of abetment to commit sucide in not present in the case.
16. These petitions are allowed. Order dated 09.11.2016 framing of charge against the petitioners is set aside. The petitioners are discharged for offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2018.02.06 11:31:52 +05'30'