Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajni Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2016
CRR-34-2016
(SMT. RAJNI BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Cr.R.No.34/2016
Rajni Bai and Other
VS.
State of Madhya Pradesh
â¦....................................................................................................
................
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
â¦....................................................................................................
................
ORDER
(29.04.2016)
1. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T.No.196/2015, whereby a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed against the petitioners/accused persons Rajni Bai and Varsha Kol.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision, in nutshell, are as follows: Deceased Vijay married accused Varsha about two years before the date of incident. Accused Rajni Bai is mother of Varsha. On 17.05.2015, deceased Vijay committed suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan at his home. A suicide note was recovered from his possession, wherein it was stated that since his marriage to accused Varsha, his life has become living hell. They repeatedly level false charges of dowry harassment against him and present false witnesses every time. If he dies, his or his father's property must not be given to his wife because his wife and mother-in-law want to trap him and get his entire property transferred in their name. Whenever he protested, his mother-in-law threatened to lodge false report. His mother-in-law has a loose character. She keeps more than one sim cards and also makes her daughter Varsha do the same. Therefore, he was committing suicide.
3. Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners/accused persons that even if all allegations made against the petitioners are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, their acts and conduct would not fall within the ambit of abetment of suicide.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioners harassed the deceased so much for getting his property partitioned and sold in order to live separately that the deceased was under
severe mental stress. In these circumstances, he was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.
5. The Court shall first consider whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioners, apart from the dying declaration as stated above, the Police has recorded the statements of numerous witnesses. Sum and substance of the statements is that ever since the marriage of deceased to petitioner Varsha, she and her mother Rajni used to persistently nag the deceased to get his fatherâs property partitioned, sell his share and live with his mother-in-law Rajni at village Lamti, Panagar. The deceased was loath to adopt such a course and he was fed up with persistent nagging. He also warned his mother-in-law, if he was harassed any further, he would commit suicide. However, the petitioner Rajni persisted with the harassment. The deceased had also expressed an intention to his acquaintances that he would write something in a note-book and commit suicide. Under severe mental stress and unable to bear relentless harassment, he committed suicide on 17.05.2015. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the conduct of the petitioners as brought-forth in the suicide note and the statements of witnesses, constitutes abetment of suicide.
6. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
â306. 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.â
7. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:
â107. 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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.â
8. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:
âTo satisfy the requirement of instigation though it it 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. The present one is not a case 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 been inferred (Emphasis supplied)
9. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) that:
"20. 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.
10. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court 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 committed suicideâ.....
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:
âThe present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.â
12. Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 3 SCC 699, it was observed that:
âThe circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life.â
13. On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2005 (2) JLJ 224 observed as hereunder:
More so, in this case the accused has not 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 an instigation may have been inferred.â
14. In the case at hand, it has been established prima- facie that the deceased committed suicide due to persistent nagging, false charges of dowry harassment and threat to implicate him and his family members in false cases, emanating from the accused persons. However, the question still remains as to whether such acts and conduct of the petitioners tantamount to abetment of suicide. It has to be noted at the outset that presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall not be available in the case because the suicide has been committed by a married man and not by a married women. It may be noted that the intention of the accused persons was to separate the deceased along with his share of ancestral property from rest of his family and make him live at his mother-in-law place. However, it is clear that the accused persons have no intention of instigating or goading the deceased to commit suicide, for the simple reason that they would not have succeed in their aim if the deceased had committed suicide. With the suicide of the deceased, their chances of attaining what they wanted have practically vanished. They could not have conceivably foreseen that their acts and conducts would lead to suicide by the deceased.
15. The deceased was a young man. In the face of persistent nagging and threat of false implication in court cases, he had several options open to him. One of them was to lodge a report with the Police other one was to approach Family Counseling Centre. He could also have sued his wife for divorce before the matters got out of hand. However, he probably was ultra-sensitive and instead of choosing any of the aforesaid options, opted to end his life. In the given circumstances, commission of suicide by the deceased was sheer exercise in escapism, for which the petitioners cannot held legally liable because it cannot be said that by their acts and conducts they had created such a situation for the deceased that he was left with no option but to commit suicide. The petitioners had no reason to conceive nexus between their actions and the result thereof, which eventually ensued. Thus, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners/accused persons Varsha and Rajni Bai under Section 306 of the IPC and the charges framed against them are not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, they are entitled to be discharged in respect of aforesaid offence.
16. In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Order dated 08.12.2015 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge Katni in S.T.No.196/2015 is set aside. Petitioners Rajni Bai and Varsha are discharged in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
C.C. as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE