Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Singh Sakhwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2017
1
Criminal Revision No.952/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH: (Vivek Agarwal, J)
Criminal Revision No.952/2017
Ravi Singh Sakhwar
Vs.
State of M.P. and another
Whether approved for reporting:
_______________________________________________
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent
No.1/State.
ORDER
(Delivered on this Day of 1st December, 2017) This Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Court of A.S.J., Ambah District Morena in S.T.No.199/17 vide which charge has been framed against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC on the ground that Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that there was no material on record to show either instigation or assistance or conspiracy to abet the suicide that is to say that ingredients under Section 107 of IPC were not fulfilled and, therefore, there is no evidence on abetement available on record and, therefore, prima facie the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is not made 2 Criminal Revision No.952/2017 out against the present applicant.
(2) Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra as reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 wherein the ratio is that while framing a charge Judge cannot act merely as a post office but has to consider the total effect of evidence and and documents produced before the Court. Similarly he has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. as reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein the ratio is that instigating a person to do a thing denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary ingredient for instigation. 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. Accordingly, prosecution under Section 306 IPC was quashed.
(3) He has also further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh as reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 wherein it has been held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and Others as reported in (2007) 11 SCC 205, wherein it has been held that mere harassment of wife by her husband or in-laws due 3 Criminal Revision No.952/2017 to disputes or differences, without anything more, pursuant to which if wife commits suicide, held it will not attract Section 306 read with Section 107.
(4) Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that no suicide note has been recovered and the deceased Nisha had committed suicide on the intervening night of 8/9 February, 2017 at her house. It is alleged that for last two months accused Ravi Singh was demanding a four wheeler in dowry and was quarreling with her for such article instigating her to commits suicide. As per the applicant, the statement of Jaswant, father of the deceased is important in as much as in his Court diary statements recorded on 15.02.2017, it is mentioned that there was demand for a four wheeler but there is no mention of instigation by the accused. (5) It is submitted that the sim for which mobile calls were made bearing No.79094 43533 is in the name of Mr. Pushpendra Singh, son of Jaswant Singh and there was no suicide note recovered from the place alleging any act on the part of the present applicant. In this backdrop, provisions contained in Section 306 IPC which deals with abetment of suicide is to be examined. It reads that 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.
(6) Section 107 IPC defines "Abetment" and it reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-4
Criminal Revision No.952/2017 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 doing of that thing; Thirdly, -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
Therefore, what is to be seen is that whether there was any instigation or engagement in a conspiracy or intentional aid in commission of such act of suicide by the accused. In fact, first case diary statement taken immediately after receiving intimation at the Police Station on 09.02.2017 is that of Jaswant Singh. He has not talked of any instigation or conspiracy but later on Raghvendra Singh had given a statement on 22.04.2017 making an allegation that Ravi had informed him that if Nisha dies then, she may do so but he will not talk to her and keep on harassing her unless she gets a four wheeler. Similar statements were given by Pushpendra Singh on 15.04.2017 and by Smt. Pushpa Sakhwar on 16.04.2017.
(7) There is considerable time lag between reporting of the incident and recording of such statements by the Police and, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that these witnesses were not tutored. Therefore, their statements to frame the accused within four corners of requirements of Section 306 IPC needs to be examined. If this was the version of the witnesses then they should have reported said 5 Criminal Revision No.952/2017 version to the Police immediately on lodging of F.I.R. and should have given their statements immediately thereafter. Besides since ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not made out, this is not a fit case for framing of charge under Section 306 IPC.
(8) It is surprising that charge has been framed only under Section 306 of IPC whereas F.I.R. was lodged under the provisions of 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act besides Section 306 IPC. The learned ASJ has not applied himself to the facts and circumstances of the case which normally reveal that prima facie a case under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out and has not framed charges under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which are prima facie made from the material available on record. Therefore, though charge under Section 306 IPC has been quashed but matter is remitted to the learned ASJ, Ambah, district Morena for examining the issue of framing of charges under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and trial of the accused under the said provision of law.
With the aforesaid, this revision petition stands disposed of.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge mani SUBASR Digitally signed by SUBASRI MANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a649f7a3438773bf2121835104753 I MANI 746385b9875063a47872ca437af06fff8ef, 2.5.4.45=032100B5FBD6FFB92D489F37879C B5EB91D2812611546B7D1562BEE45CECD00 6142951, cn=SUBASRI MANI Date: 2017.12.04 19:05:45 +05'30'