Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-3472-2017
sh
(RAMNARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-12-2017
ad
Shri Bhavil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Pr
Shri Ramji Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
This revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
a hy has been filed to assail the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the Second ASJ, Begumganj, District Raisen, wherein charges have been ad framed against the petitioner Nos. 1 Ramnarayan, No.2 Ritesh @ M Jainarayan and No.3 Rupesh for offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
of The prosecution story in brief is that, a piece of land was sole by rt the deceased to Jainarayan on 16.03.2015 for sale-consideration of ou Rs.14,86,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and eighty six thousand only). Allegedly the petitioners did not pay the whole sale consideration. The C deceased Ramakant was harassed by non-payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. h He was also questioned by his family members for the same. Because ig of the said harassment caused by the petitioners/accused persons, the H deceased committed suicide.
On the report of Rajesh Rawat, FIR was lodged at Police Station Silwani, District Raisen, and subsequently after the investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The case committed to the Court of Session. Learned Second ASJ, Begumganj framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
The petitioners have challenged the order of framing of charge on the grounds that they are innocent. They have not abetted to commit of suicide. Even if the prima facie evidence is considered in its entirety, it do not constitute the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It is stated that there was dispute between the family of the deceased and his family members with the accused persons. On account of his sh illegal activities, false case has been registered against the petitioners.
On behalf of the respondent-State, the petition has been e ad vehemently opposed stating that the petitioners did not pay the whole amount of the sale-consideration and harassed the deceased. The Pr family members of the deceased also questioned him about non-
a payment. The deceased having harassed by the petitioner had no other hy alternative except to commit suicide. Therefore, the petitioners are ad responsible for commission suicide of by the deceased. Hence, the order impugned do not call for any interference.
M Perused the police diary.
of The post-mortem report dated 15.04.2017 show that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The rt statement of Saroj Rawat, the widow of deceased, Ramakant, the son ou of the deceased, and Mithlesh and Girish Narayan, show that after the C sale of the land, Rs.1,50,000/- was not paid by the accused h person/petitioners to the deceased. The deceased having frustrated and ig harassed, due to this, committed suicide. H For understanding the position, it would be appropriate to analyze the provisions of Section 306 r/w Section 107 of the IPC.
Section 306 of the IPC 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."
Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"17. Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First- Instigate any person to do that thing; or sh Secondly- Engage with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the e doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission ad takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Pr Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1: A person who by willful a misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of hy a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to ad cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
M Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does of anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that rt act."ÃÂÃÂ ou Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State C represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC h 626, had occasioned to analyze the "word" abetment of suicide held as ig under:-
H "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 led the deceased to commit suicide seeking no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
In the present case, there is no suicide note nor any other evidence recorded except which had enumerated above. It is sh essentially to understand what actually constitute abetment as has been described by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan e ad Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750.
In the case of Ankit Gupta Vs. State of M.P. 2016 (2) MPWN Pr 78, when there was demand of money earlier borrowed by the a deceased, the deceased committed suicide, it was held that there was hy no mens rea.
ad 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 M resist the pressure, committed suicide.
of In both the cases the accused persons were held not having any intention or mens rea to abet the commission of the suicide.
rt In the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of M.P. 2007 (2) ou MPWN 26, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that merely C demand of advance money were pressurizing by the accused persons to h the deceased for the demand does not itself prove the intention for ig commission of offence.
H In the case Gangula Mohan Reddy (Supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court held that:-
"Abetment" involves a mental process of instigating a person and intentionally aiding a person in doing of thing - Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."
The case in hand is not a case where the cause for commission was not continued to create such circumstances for which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case the instigation may have infer in this regard. Regard can be made to the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2000 (9) SCC sh
618. If the prosecution is taken in its entirety, even then the e ad ingredients of abetment to commit suicide is completely missing. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow this petition as the element of mens rea is not present in this case. Pr a Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Impugned order dated hy 15.11.2017 framing of charge against the petitioners under Section 306 ad r/w 34 of the IPC is set aside. The petitioners are discharged from offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
M Before parting with the order, this Court would deem it proper to of mention that if the prosecution or the investigating agency deem it fit, may proceed against the petitioners-accused persons for other offences rt but not under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
ou Certified copy as per rules.
C (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) h ig JUDGE H ac/-
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARYDate: 2017.12.20 21:08:11 -08'00'