Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akash Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-03071-2017
sh
(AKASH KUMAR GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
4
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-01-2018
Pr
Shri Alok Bagrecha, learned counsel with Shri Mohd. Siddiqui,
learned counsel for the petitioner-Akash Kumar Gupta.
a
Shri Gyan Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner-
hy
Kranti Sonkar.
ad
Shri C.K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the
M
respondent-State.
Both the petitions (Cr.R. Nos.3071/2017 and 2952/2017) have of arisen out of the same order, therefore, both the petitions are being rt decided by this common order.
ou Heard.
The petitioners have preferred these revisions under Section 397 C r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging order dated 26.09.2017, passed by h the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in S.T. No.430/2017, ig wherein charges have been framed against the petitioners for offence H under Section 306 of the IPC.
Bereft of the unnecessary details the facts requisite for disposal of these petitions are that, Amit @ Ambe Chourasiya, committed suicide on 01.03.2017 at about 1:30 p.m. His post-mortem report reveals that he died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. He left a suicide note in which he alleged that he is committing suicide due to compulsion. He had obtained loan from the accused persons namely, Manish Dubey, Kanti Sonkar, Akash Gupta, Golu Sonkar and Laxmi @ Neetu Rizwani. Because of their harassment for non-payment of loan, the deceased Amit @ Ambe hanged himself and committed suicide.
After the report at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, investigation sh was made and charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 of the IPC r/w Section 3 of the Rin e ad Sarankshan Adhiniyam, 1939.
On perusal of the police diary it is found that the deceased died Pr due to ante-mortem handing. The witnesses revealed that the deceased a was harassed for non-payment of the loan amount by the accused hy persons, culminated into the commission of suicide. The suicide note ad left by the deceased reads as under:-
^^vkSj ckck iku okyk esa nqdku [kqyh uk M dkj.k dkyh dkj.kksa ds dsgrk gSas jksrs gq, of vkiuh tku ns jgk gw rt t; ekrk nh ou es vki us ikik ekEeh dks vkSj 2 HkkbZ vkSj C ekW tslh Hkkoh dks okgqr pkgrk gq h ig vki yks yksx jksuk ekr esjh dkle gS H vEcs es , [kkr ,e-ih- Fkkuk vkserh ds uke yh[k jkgk gw es cgqr gh ektcwjh esa vkiuh tku ns jgk gq es vkiuh tku nsuk ukgh pkgrk ij ektcwjh es ns jkgk gq eq>s dkjts okys ijs'k dkjrs gS vkSj eq>s tku ls ekjus dh nke nsrss gS dqN lke; igys esus bu ls dkjt yh;k Fkk bZu yksxks ds uke gS üekuh'k nqcs½ vk/kkjry ¼uhrq vkuaVh½ ¼dhjkrh lksudkj½ sh Hkjrhiqj ¼vkdk'kÃpkj½ bZu yksx eq>s e ad ikjs'kÂku dkjrs gS es Fkkuk vkserh i'ku ls Pr vkihy dkjrk gq dh esjs ekjus ds ckn dkjt ckys esjs ekW cki dks ijs'k uk dkjs a hy üvkSj es vkius ikfjokj okys ls , izFkkuk ad dkjrk gq ekW cki dk /kku jk[kksý^^ M On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. There is no prima facie evidence against of the petitioners to constitute offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
rt Because the demand of interest on the borrowed amount do not ou constitute abetment to commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is completely missing. It is also contended that the C money advanced towards loan was demanded and the interest of the h loan demanded can never be considered or termed as "abetment to ig commit suicide".
H On behalf of the respondent-State the application is vehemently opposed and it is contended that the deceased was running a tea stall and the accused persons were harassing him. They were taking away money everyday which he earned. Because of which the deceased left with no other option except to commit suicide.
The entire evidence if taken as it is, disclose that the deceased committed suicide because of the demand of interest of the loan amount by the accused persons including the petitioners.
There is no averment in the statements or in the FIR that the deceased was in any way harassed by the accused persons. For the better understanding of the provisions, Section 306 of the IPC is reproduced, which is as follows:-
sh "306. Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall e ad be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Pr a It is also necessary to understand what actual constitute hy "abetment". "Abetment" has been defined under Section 107 of the ad IPC, which reads as follows:-
"107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing M of a thing, who-
of First- Instigate any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engage with one or more other person or rt persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an ou act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that C conspiracy, and h in order to the doing of that thing; or ig Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal H 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 the case of Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P., 2014(3) MPHT 103, this Court has also opined that:-
sh "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397/401- Order of framing charge under Section 306, IPC- No e ad evidence of abetment to commit suicide- Money borrowed to the deceased and demanding back of money was not an act Pr of harassment- Demand of loan amount is not an abetment a under Section 107, IPC- Words uttered in heat of moment hy does not amount to abetment- Held- Order of framing charge ad is not sustainable and set aside." So far as the deceased and the petitioners are concerned, there M was money transaction and there could have been dishonesty by the of accused persons, but the same cannot be termed as "abetment to commit suicide".
rt In Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P., 2009(2) MPLJ 147, the ou deceased committed suicide on account of playing dishonesty in a C transaction of loan by the petitioner. The act as alleged against the h petitioner does not amount to instigation nor constitutes aid in ig commission of the suicide by the deceased. Order framing charge H against the petitioner for offence under Section 306/34, IPC was set aside."
In the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 CRI. L.J. 1737, Hon'ble the apex Court has held that:-
"(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 107, 306- Abetment of suicide- No averment in alleged suicide note that accused had caused any harm to deceased or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to him- No reference of any act or incidence in alleged suicide note whereby accused has committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated deceased in committing act of suicide- It cannot be said that accused had in any way sh instigated deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for suicide of deceased."
e ad In the case of Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P., 2003 (I) MPWN 73 and Devendra singh Vs. State of M.P., 2007 (III) Pr MPWN 95, similar matter was considered and categorically held that a borrower saying to the creditor that he may commit suicide does not hy amount to instigation. Any conversation between borrower and ad creditor does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In the circumstances, accused persons if at all exchanged any dialogue for M demanding back their money does not constitute the offence of of instigation or abetment to commit suicide.
Even if the decease was in any manner threatened or harassed, rt he could have lodged the report against the petitioners and without ou lodging a report he has taken a drastic step of committing suicide to C punish his tormentors in his own way. This cannot be termed as h "abetment to commit suicide". Following the law laid down in the case ig of Ram Naresh and another Vs. State of M.P. and others 2002(2) H MPHT 183, this Court is also of the opinion that the report against the accused persons for alleged torture and threat to kill the deceased may constitute other offences but it may not be offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The deceased could have moved to the police or higher officials instead of taking his legal and legitimate action as 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 is made out against the petitioners.
That being so, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are discharge from offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Before parting with the case, it is observed that, the prosecution is free or at liberty to prosecute the petitioners for other offences, sh including the offence under Section 3 of the Rin Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1939, if deem fit.
e ad Certified copy as per rules.
Pr (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE a hy ad M ac/-
Digitally signed byof ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2018.01.06 rt 01:18:02 -08'00' ou C h ig H