Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-7864-2018
(SITARAM TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur Dated: 18/04/2018
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Mohit Nayak, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the F.I.R., in Crime No. 921/17, wherein FIR has been registered against the petitioner -Sitaram Tiwari for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. at police station, Panagar, District Jabalpur.
2. As per the prosecution story Madan Lal was a retired Government employee committed suicide on 29.06.2016 by consuming poison (insecticide). It is alleged that he had obtained loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner had got an agreement of Rs. 6,00,000/- executed by him for sale of his agricultural land. It is also alleged that in the agreement, it was mentioned in the agreement that the consideration is Rs. 7,00,000/- out of which Rs. 6,00,000/- has been received by Madan Lal and Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid at the time of registration. The deceased refunded the loan amount even then the petitioner was claiming that he has not returned the amount. It is also claimed that the deceased was paying Rs. 10,000/- from his pension per month to the petitioner yet the petitioner was claiming compound interest and was demanding Rs. 5,00,000/-, therefore, due to the mental and physical harassment caused by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. Police Station, Panagar registered Crime No. 921/17 for offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and the post mortem report dated 29.06.2016, reveal that cause of death can be established after chemical examination of viscera. The F.S.L. report from Sagar dated 20.02.2017 reveal that aluminium phosphide was found in the viscera. Therefore, it has been found that the deceased died due to the insecticide/pesticide. The deceased left a "suicide note" in which he has mentioned that the petitioner was harassed by petitioner Sitaram. Deceased Madan Lal had obtained loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Deceased paid Rs.10,000/- every month from his pension. Even then he has made him executed agreement of sale of his land for 6,00,000/-. Because of the same, he had made letters to higher authorities and is now ending his life. The statement of the witnesses indicate that the deceased obtained loan from the petitioner, because of the loan he was under tense. The petitioner harassed him, therefore, he consumed insecticides and committed suicide.
3. For better understanding of the provisions of Section 306 of IPC is reproduced it read as follows:-
"306. Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
4. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes "abetment." as defined under Section 107 of I.P.C., 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.
5. Abetment of suicide as analyzed in the case of Ram Naresh and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2002(2)M.P.H.T. 183 in which 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 have lodged a report against 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 that case, he could have moved higher officials. But instead of taking this legal and legitimate 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."
6. The abetment actually involve a mental process of investing a person for intentionally aiding the person and doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The petitioner, even if considering the prosecution case to be true and the entire evidence in its entirety cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh where the deceased servant was accused by the appellant/accused theft of gold ornaments, two days prior to the servant's death and allegedly demanded Rs. 7,000/-, which was given to the deceased in advance, the deceased not able to bear harassment meted out to him, allegedly committed suicide. The Apex Court held that, the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged. The deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is made out.
7. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. Reported as 2002(5) SCC 371 the Apex Court as held that "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens-rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation even the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as "to go and die", cannot be taken to be uttered with mens-rea, if the deceased was tortured by the accused and threatened him to take away his agricultural land the deceased could have lodged report and if the police declined to record the report, he could have moved to higher official. But instead of taken this legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentor. It is not a case in which the accused by his acts or omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option expect to commit suicide. In which case an instigation may have been preferred. Otherwise also the petitioner would be last person to could have wanted the deceased to commit suicide for he was to receive the loan amount from the deceased.
8. The mens-rea which is important ingredients for the offence under Section 107 read with Section 306 of I.P.C. is completely missing the present case, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. though he may be tried for other offences such as attempt to commit extortion or other offences, if any. In this background, this Court find it a fit case to allow this petition.
9. Petition is allowed. The FIR at Crime No. 921/17 registered at Police Station, Panagar for offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner is quashed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2018.04.24 11:18:43 +05'30'