Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Guddi Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020
(1) Smt. Guddi Rawat
(2) Virendra Rawat
vs.
State of MP
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Misc. Criminal Case No. 39932/2020
(1) Smt. Guddi Rawat
(2) Virendra Rawat ..... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of MP ..... RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent No.1/State.
None for respondent No.2, though served.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.06.2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
Law laid down Relevant paras
(1) As Section 306 of IPC makes
abatement of commission of suicide
punishable, therefore, for making a Para 8
person liable for an offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC,
it is a duty of the prosecution to
establish that such person has
abated the commission of suicide
and for the purpose of determining
the act of the accused it is necessary
to see that his act must fall in any of
the 3 categories as enumerated
-( 2 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020
(1) Smt. Guddi Rawat
(2) Virendra Rawat
vs.
State of MP
under Section 107 of the IPC and,
therefore, it is necessary to prove
that the said accused has instigated Para 8
the person to commit suicide or
must have engaged with one or
more other persons in any
conspiracy for seeing that the
deceased commits suicide or he
must intentionally act by any act or
illegal omission, of the commission
of suicide by the deceased.
(2) A person can be said to
have instigated another person, Para 17
when he actively suggests or
stimulates him by means of
language, direct or indirect.
Instigate means to goad or
urge forward or to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage to do
an act.
ORDER
(Passed on 26th July, 2021) This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioners invoking the inherent powers of the court, for quashing the FIR dated 14.6.2020 (Annexure P/1) registered at Crime No. 148/2020 by Police Station Badoni, District Datia, alleging offences punishable u/S. 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, along with consequential proceedings.
2. The police registered Merg No.13/2020. After enquiring the matter under Section 174 of CrPC, FIR was lodged -( 3 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP on account of commission of suicide by Girja Bai, aged 62 years, by hanging.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been registered without any basis, rather the FIR is frivolous and deserves to be quashed. The prosecution story is false. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they were not maintaining mother-in-law/grand mother respectively despite the fact that the husband of the deceased along with her two sons were alive. Therefore, the allegation levelled against the present petitioners that they were not looking after the deceased is totally baseless. There is no iota of evidence about instigation against the present petitioners nor there is any ingredient of Section 107 of IPC. Hence, prays for quashing of the impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition and prayed for its rejection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The FIR has been registered at Crime No. 148/2020 by Police Station Badoni, District Datia for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, wherein it is mentioned that the present petitioners were not maintaining/looking after the deceased and they had denied primary rights of the deceased and had not looked after her, due to which deceased committed suicide.
6. To resolve the controversy, it appears necessary first of all to have a look on the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC.
-( 4 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020(1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP Section 306 of IPC reads as under:-
"Section 306. 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."
7. The 'abatement' has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC, which reads as under:-
"Section 107. 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. 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."
8. As Section 306 of IPC makes abatement of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making aperson liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abated the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the 3 categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has -( 5 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally act by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.
9. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of MP, (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9 to 11 has observed as under:-
"9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who -( 6 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires 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 the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
10. In case of Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, [2012 (1) JT 478], it is observed that 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 been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under section 107 of the Code. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 while dealing with the term "instigation" held as under :-
"16. ... instigation is to goad, urge forward, 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 -( 7 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP 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...."
12. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"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 whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing 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 -( 8 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP of suicide should be found guilty".
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as under:-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
14. In Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750, Hon'ble Apex Court 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 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 clear mens rea to commit offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads -( 9 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP deceased to 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".
15. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence 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 the 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.-( 10 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020
(1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above.A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause 'thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.
15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we have examined the provision of clause thirdly which provides that a person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing when he intentionally does or omits to do anything in order to aid the commission of that thing. The Act further gives an idea as to who would be intentionally aiding by any act of doing of that thing when in Explanation 2 it is provided as follows:
"Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does -( 11 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP 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."
16. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses namely firstly alongwith explanation 1 or more particularly thirdly with Explanation 2 to Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC."
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :
''35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ((2009) 16 SCC 605 to contend that the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the purposes of determining whether the offence under these provisions has been committed or not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No doubt that the word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC
618) to say that 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 other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds -( 12 )- MCRC No. 39932/2020 (1) Smt. Guddi Rawat (2) Virendra Rawat vs. State of MP it difficult to continue existence.''
17. Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
18. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are accepted, then there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioners in any manner had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The FIR in Crime No.148/2020 registered at Police Station Badoni, District Datia for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence are hereby quashed.
19. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(Yog) Judge.
YOGESH VERMA
2021.07.26
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
15:38:31 +05'30'