Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivshankar Goel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2017
60
Cr.R. No.2368/2016
13/10/2017
Shri Vikas Mahawar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Saurav Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor
for the respondent-State.
Heard finally.
ORDER
This revision petition preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 29.08.2016, whereby charge under Section 306/34 of IPC has been framed against petitioner - Shivshankar Goel and two other accused persons by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.350/16.
02. As per prosecution, one Amarsingh committed suicide on 19.11.2015 by jumping over the railway track. His dead body was found nearby the railway track. A 'Merg' was registered in the matter and enquiry was conducted. On the basis of enquiry, First Information Report bearing Crime No.38/16 was registered against the petitioner and two other persons namely, Suresh and Gyanchandra for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. Investigation was carried out and in due course, a charge-
60sheet was submitted before the Competent Court from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court on the basis of material produced before it vide the impugned judgment framed a charge under Section 306/34 of IPC against the petitioner and other co- accused persons.
03. The allegation against the petitioner is that the deceased had borrowed some money from the petitioner and other co-accused persons, allegedly, he has repaid the money with interest still the petitioner and other persons were demanding money from him and the petitioner has lodged criminal complaint cases against the petitioner with regard to dishonour of cheque. Allegedly, the deceased has left a suicide note in which he has stated that he is feeling disturbed (ijs'kku) because he has paid a lot of money by way of interest to the petitioner and other persons and still the money is being demanded from them.
04. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that even if all the allegations are accepted at its face value, still a case for abetment to commit suicide is not made out against the petitioner because there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner at any point of time has instigated, persuaded, incited, encouraged or goaded the deceased to commit suicide.
6005. Reliance in this regard is placed on a decision of this Court on Sunil Rathore vs. State of M.P., reported in 2016 SCC Online M.P. 5265, and few other cases of the apex Court.
06. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the deceased was being subjected to utmost harassment, therefore, finding no other alternate, he committed suicide and hence, prima-facie an offence under Section 306/34 of IPC is made out against the petitioner.
07. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
08. As regards offence u/S. 306 r/w Section 107 of IPC, we can usefully refer to the decision rendered by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.1742/2016 (Bittu @ Girriraj vs. State of M.P., Order dated 08.03.2017, Bench Indore), wherein the legal position has been considered in the light of various pronouncements of Hon'ble the apex Court; relevant paras whereof run as under:
09. 'Abetment to commit suicide' is an offence under Section 306 of IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine. Expression 'Abetment' has been defined in Section 107 of IPC which runs as under :-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-- A 60 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. Explanation 1.-A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate 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"
10. In the State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532, the apex Court explaining the meaning and expanse of word 'abetment' as used in Section 107 of IPC, has held as under:
"Abetment" as defined by Section 107 of the IPC comprises (i) instigation to do that thing which is an offence, (ii) engaging in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, and (iii) 60 intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Section 108 defines an abettor as a person who abets an offence or who abets either the commission of an offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence. The word "instigate" in the literary sense means to incite, set or urge on, stir up, goad, foment, stimulate, provoke, etc. The dictionary meaning of the word "aid" is to give assistance, help etc.
11. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, a three Judge Bench of the apex Court explaining the meaning and connotation of word "instigation" has held as under ( para. 20):
"20. 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 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 60 commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
12. Taking note of the fact that each person's suicidability pattern is different from others and that each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect, the apex Court in M. Mohan Vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2011 CRI.L.J. 1900 (S.C.), referring to its earlier decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605, held that to constitute abetment, there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused.
13. Reference can also be made to the decision of the apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 261, wherein the allegation was that the deceased was beaten by the accused and was also subjected to harassment, due to which he committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. The apex Court referring to its earlier decisions in Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P., (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 731 and 60 Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, holding that offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 of IPC is not made out, observed 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".
14. In Deepak V. State of M.P., 1994 Cri. LJ 767 (M.P.), the deceased girl was threatened with defamation, if she refused to have sexual intercourse with two accused; within an hour she committed suicide leaving a suicidal note. Accepting the plea that the act of the accused might have been a reason for committing suicide but the same did not constitute abatement within the meaning of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, it was held that
-
"neither there was any intention nor any positive act on the part of the accused to instigate her or aid her in committing suicide. The two accused persons, therefore, cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and their conviction on that count by the trial Court, is liable to be set aside."60
15. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 S.C. 1998, the accused was charged under Section 306 of IPC for abetting his brother-in-law to commit suicide; the accused allegedly said to him to 'go and die'; the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that accused is responsible for his death. It was held that words "go and die" do not constitute instigation for mens rea of offence under Section 307 of IPC.
16. In Mahendra Singh and Anr.
Vs. State of M.P., 1996 Cri.L.J. 894=1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, a case prior to the insertion of Section 113-A in the Evidence Act, the charge under Section 306 IPC proceeded on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased to the effect that -
"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." Considering legal sustainability of the same the apex Court held as under:
"Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 60 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. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased."
17. From the aforesaid pronouncements of the apex Court, it flows that to constitute abetment to commit suicide, there must be material, prima-facie, indicating that accused with a positive act on his part instigated, incited, aided or provoked the person to commit suicide.
18. In Devendra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2009) 7 SCC 495, it has been held as under:
"when the allegations made in the first information report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing."
09. Considered in the light of aforesaid legal position, it is clear that 'harassment' simpliciter cannot 60 amount to abetment to commit suicide. In the instant case, the only allegation is that the money was being demanded back and the deceased has paid lot of money by way of interest, however, that itself cannot constitute abetment to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 306/34 of IPC.
10. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the impugned order to the extent it relates to framing of charge under Section 306/34 of IPC qua the petitioner is hereby quashed and the petitioner is discharged for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.
Cc as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya