Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Banshkaar @ Manju Banshkaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2015
CRR-1677-2015
(RAMESH BANSHKAAR @ MANJU BANSHKAAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
26-11-2015
This criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the revisionist/accused Ramesh Banshkaar is directed against the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District-Katni in Sessions Trial No.395/2014, whereby learned trial Court had framed a charge against the revisionist/accused under Section 306 of the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Maniklal Kol had taken a loan from revisionist/Ramesh Banshkaar. For repayment of the loan, revisionist Ramesh Banshkaar had taken away his ATM card and Bank pass-book from deceased Maniklal. He used to take away entire pension of the deceased in the sum of Rs.9,000/- by way of interest on the loan. The deceased took loan of Rs.1 lac from Sihora Branch of State Bank of India and had repaid the loan; however, the revisionist did not issue any written receipt of the repayment of the loan. The revisionist/accused used to charge interest @ 20% per month than 10 % per month and thereafter 6% per month from the deceased. He used to deduct commission on the amount repaid. If in any month deceased Maniklal Kol defaulted of interest, he used to come to the house of the deceased and threatened him that he would beaten him up and even if the deceased and his wife died, he would recover the loan from selling his house. Feeling trapped by the applicant and seeing no way out of the trap, the deceased Maniklal Kol and his wife Ushabai committed suicide in the night between 10 th and 11 th of March, 2014 by hanging themselves by rope from the cieling.
3. Thereafter, marg intimation was lodged. Naksha- panchnama of the dead body was prepared. A hand written suicide note addressed to SHO, P.S.-Sihora written by deceased Maniklal Kol was discovered from his shirt pocket. In the post-mortem examination, deceased Maniklal and his wife Usha Bai were found to have died due to asphyxia caused by hanging and the nature was death was found to be suicidal. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 306 and 387 of the IPC was filed. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the revisionist/accused in respect of deceased Maniklal Kol. He was discharged of offences punishable under Sections 387 and 306 of the IPC in respect of his wife Usha Bai.
4. Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that even if all allegations made against the applicant are taken at their face value, his acts and conducts would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer on the other hand, has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the revisionist was pressurizing and threatening deceased to cough-up more money inspite of the fact that he had already returned the entire amount due and was not issuing any receipts for the repayment made. In these circumstances, deceased and his wife were under severe mental stress and being unable to bear the illegal pressure exerted by the revisionist, they committed suicide.
6. The Court shall first consider whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the revisionist/accused?
7. A perusal of the prosecution case reveals that the case is based upon the suicide-note discovered from the shirt pocket of the deceased, Naksha-panchnama of the dead body, post mortem examination report and ATM Card and pass book of the deceased Maniklal Kol seized on disclosure statements made by the revisionist from his possession and documents seized from the Sihora Branch of State Bank of India. In addition thereto, statements of witnesses Varsha Bai, Daughter of the deceased, Vijay, Son-in-law of the deceased, Mohit, Maternal grandson of the deceased, Sanjay and Rajesh Kumar, neighbourers and Balchand Patel, Chief Manager of the Sihora Branch of State Bank of India were also recorded under section. The Suicide note was sent to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison of handwriting and signature of the deceased; however, it appears that the report has not yet been received.
8. The gist of the material collected against the revisionist is that the deceased Maniklal Kol had taken loan from the revisionist Ramesh Banshkaar. However, it is not clear as to what was the amount and when was it taken. The deceased Maniklal Kol was a driver, who had retired from Indian Railways. He took a loan in the sum of Rs.1 Lac for repairing his house from Sihora Branch of State Bank of India and repaid the loan he had taken from revisionist Ramesh Banshkaar; however, revisionist did not issue any receipts for the aforesaid amount. As such, there is no material, apart from the suicide-note to suggest that the loan was indeed repaid. The revisionist had also taken the ATM Card and Bank pass-book of deceased and used to take away entire pension in the sum of Rs.9,000/- every month. He used to charge interest @ 20%, 10% and 6% per month respectively. He used to get the deceased drunk and then; after pressurizing him, used to get the loan documents written by him. Whenever the deceased committed default in repayment of loan in any month, the revisionists used to come to the house of the deceased and threatened to beaten him up. He also used to threaten that even if the deceased and his wife died, he would recover loan by selling his house. The deceased was under severe mental stress due to aforesaid illegal conduct on the part of the revisionist; therefore, seeing no other option, he committed suicide by hanging himself by rope from the ceiling along with his wife.
9. Now the question that arises for consideration is that whether the conduct of the revisionist as brought-forth in the suicide note and statement of witnesses, constitute abetment of suicide?
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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)
13. 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.
14. 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)
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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.
18. It is pertinent to note that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Cr.L.J. 893, with regard to suicide committed following attempts by the accused to recover his loan held as hereunder:
âThe accused persons were charge-sheeted under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal) death. However, it was found that none of the accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report. In that case, he could have moved higher officials. But, instead of taking this legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged commission of the was made out against the accused persons.
The prosecution of the accused would be nothing but abuse of process of law. The charge-sheet filed against accused Quashed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.â
19. In the case at hand, it has been established prima facie that the deceased had taken loan from the revisionist/accused and he was pressurizing and threatening the deceased for returning the amount, which caused severe mental stress to the deceased and his wife. As a result of which, they committed suicide by hanging. However, it is clear that the applicant had no intention of instigating or goading deceased to commit suicide, for the simple reason that with the suicide of the deceased, his chances of extracting further amount would practically vanish, inspite of the threat issued by him to recover the same by selling the house of the deceased. The revisionist could not have conceivably foreseen that a demand or even coercion practiced by him upon the deceased, would lead to suicide of the deceased.
20. Even if it is presumed to be true that the revisionist was behaving like a loan-shark, it cannot be said that the deceased was bereft of any options. He could simply refuse to pay the loan amount and could have lodged an FIR against the revisionist if he felt aggrieved by his conduct. Even if the circumstances allegedly created by revisionist are held to be true. It cannot be said that he had created such a situation for the deceased that he was left with no option but to commit suicide. The applicant had no reason to conceive nexus between his action and the result that eventually ensued.
21. Thus, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the revisionist/accused under Section 306 of the IPC and the charge framed against him is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, he is entitled to be discharged in respect of aforesaid offence.
22. In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Applicant Ramesh Banshkaar is discharged in respect of offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC regarding the deceased Maniklal Kol also.
C.C. as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE