Amarjeet Singh Cheema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2023

[Cites 13, Cited by 4]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Amarjeet Singh Cheema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2023

1. This revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by order SAN Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE dated 4.9.2021 passed by Twelfth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST No. 441/2021 whereby the charge under Section 306/34 of IPC has been 2 framed against the applicants.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, The applicants accused formed a company namely 'Cheema Service Security Force Private Limited' in the name of Rajender Singh (since deceased), threatened to implicate him in a false case and harassed him, as a result of which he committed suicide leaving behind a suicidal note mentioning the name of present applicants. On the basis of said suicidal note, a case was registered against the applicants vide Crime No. 50/2021 for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed before competent Court and charge under Section 306/34 of IPC has been framed against the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Prima facie no case under Section 306/34 of IPC is made out against the applicants. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC is missing in this case. He has placed reliance on order dated 10.2.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 725 of 2016, order dated 17.11.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 10225 of 2017 , order dated 6.1.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1967 of 2018 and order dated 19.4.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 28192 of 2021. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and to discharge the applicants from the aforesaid offence.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the objector has opposed this petition by placing Signature Not Verified SAN reliance on the decision of this Court in Raghuveer and others Vs. State of Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST M.P. reported in [2015 (2) MPLJ (cri.) 304], Manish Sahu Vs. State of 3 M.P. reported in [2015 (2) MPLJ (cri.) 65] and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone though the material available on record. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. Section 306 of I.P.C. 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 for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetment is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which reads as under :-

107.Abetment of a thing - person abets the doing of a thing, who Firstly 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.

7 . The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, while dealing Signature Not Verified SAN with the term "instigation" has held as under :-

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST

16......instigation is to goad, urge forward, 4 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 the consequence.

Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

17. Thus, to constitute instigation, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction... to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts....

Signature Not Verified SAN

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 has held as under :-

Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST 5

17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh ((1991) 3 SCC 1), Surender v. State of Haryana ((2006) 12 SCC 375, Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. ( (2007) 10 SCC 797) and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree ((2009) 1 SCC 554)

18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide.

Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be Signature Not Verified SAN determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST 6 felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 CrPC.Ã‚Â

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 in Para 12 it has been held as under :-

The word "instigage" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750 needs mentioned here, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has 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". In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a Signature Not Verified SAN clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST active act or direct act which leads deceased to 7 commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty. Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out. Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable.

11. In the case of State of W.B. vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

8. This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding Signature Not Verified SAN whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE fact induced her to end the life by committing Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST 8 suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that that accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 has held as under :-

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the Signature Not Verified SAN deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST this act must have been intended to push the 9 deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 in Para 44 has observed as under:-

"44. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

14. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that to constitute Signature Not Verified SAN "instigation" a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST encourage the doing of an act by the other by goading or "urging forward". The 10 offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

15. In the present case, The deceased was the real brother of applicant No.1, brother-in-law of applicant No.2 and son of applicant No.3. From perusal of the record, it appears that there was a property dispute between them. Learned counsel for complainant has filed written submission along with certain documents particularly statement of daughter of the deceased to show that in the year 2019, the applicants committed marpeet with the deceased. At that time, no report was lodged by the deceased against the applicants. Further that, main allegation against the present applicants is that they registered a company namely 'Cheema Service Security Force Private Limited' in the name of Rajender Singh (deceased) by misusing the name of the deceased without any information to him and by using his signatures and the documents.

16. The deceased made an application addressed to the Director/S.P., Registrar of Companies, Gwalior to the effect that all the transactions of the Signature Not Verified SAN aforesaid company were forged, hence its registration may be cancelled and Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST appropriate action may be taken against the applicants. Along with the aforesaid 11 application, a postal receipt has been filed and no acknowledgement has been filed.

17. The daughter of the deceased namely Simran alleged that due to behaviour and conduct of the applicants, the deceased became mentally retarded, but no document in this regard is available on record. The deceased in his suicidal note wrote that the applicants are responsible for his death. They have formed a forged company and they have threatened him to implicate in false case. The applicants have ousted him and his family members from the house and they have sent a false notice of defamation.

18. On perusal of the contents of the suicide note, it is apparent that the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are missing in this case. The conduct of the applicants towards the deceased might be a cause of his depression but it cannot be said that due to the act of the applicants, the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. The intention of the Legislature is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide, which is missing in this case.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has committed error in framing the charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC against the applicants. Hence, this revision is allowed. The applicants are discharged Signature Not Verified SAN from the aforesaid charge.

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST 12

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.04.28 10:43:13 IST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court