Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radha Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019
(Radhabai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated:08/01/2020
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinit Jai Hardia, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), being aggrieved by the order dated 20/05/2019 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No. 136/2019 whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for commission of the offence punishable under section 306/34 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 14/10/2018, Police- Station-GRP, Ujjain received an information that one unidentified person is run over by the railway engine at Akodiya railway station. On the basis of which a merg No. 16/2018 was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. During merg enquiry, police prepared panchnama of the dead body, who was identified as Bhojraj, resident of Village- Khedi Nagar, Police-Station-Akodiya, District-Shajapur. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for postmortem and police recorded the statement of the family members of the deceased and it was found that the deceased came to know that his wife is having love affair with another boy-Bhagwan Singh, from whom she is talking on mobile phone for a longtime, due to which some dispute arose between the applicant and the deceased. Deceased tried to stop the applicant for making contact with Bhagwan Singh but she did not stop to talk with him and clearly stated that she will continue her M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019 2 relationship with Bhagwan Singh and if he has any objection in their relationship then he goes to die. Feeling with this torture, deceased- Bhojraj committed suicide by jumping before the running train. On the basis of aforesaid merg enquiry, police registered FIR bearing Crime No. 276/2018 at Police-Station-Ujjain against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC on 07/12/2018 and arrested the applicant. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, which ultimately transferred to the Court of 9 th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. The trial Court after considering the material available on record, vide order dated 20/05/2019 has framed the charge against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no suicide note has been left by the deceased regarding the reasons for commission of suicide. According to the statement of the relatives of the deceased, the applicant was having extramarital relations with one Bhagwan Singh and she used to talk with him on mobile phone for a longtime. The deceased objected on their relationship and he tried to stop her for not making contact with Bhagwan Singh and in this regard a quarrel was also taken place between the applicant and the deceased, due to which feeling harassed and humiliated, the deceased committed suicide. Even if all the allegations made against the applicant are accepted at their face value, even then no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant because none of the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 107 of the IPC are fulfilled in the present case. There is nothing available on record to suggest that there was any direct or active act played by the applicant, M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019 3 which led the deceased to commit suicide, hence, prima facie no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in framing the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for setting aside of the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application by contending that there is sufficient material available on record to established that the applicant was having extramarital relations with one Bhagwan Singh and even after objection raised by the deceased, she remained in the touch of Bhagwan Singh on mobile phone and she harassed the deceased by contending that he is impotent and due to the aforesaid behaviour of the applicant there was no any option left before the deceased except to commit suicide. Under these circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The parameters of 'abetment' have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows :-
"107. 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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019 4
Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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."
7. From the perusal of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses, it is revealed that the applicant was married to the deceased-Bhojraj and even after the marriage, she was in contact with one Bhagwan Singh and she was having illicit relations with him. The applicant also used to talk to Bhagwan Singh on mobile phone for a longtime. When the deceased came to know about the extra marital relationship of the applicant with Bhagwan Singh, he tried to stop her for making contact with Bhagwan Singh. But the applicant refused to do so and due to which a quarrel was taken place between the applicant and the deceased, in which she told that he is impotent and she will continue the relationship with Bhagwan Singh and if he feels ashame, then he can die and because of this feeling humiliated and harassed, the deceased committed suicide by jumping before the running train.
8. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), report in (2009) 16 SCC 605, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"12. A person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019 5 is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that 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. 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.
19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and M.Cr.C. No.40022/2019 6 multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self."
9. The plain reading of the reproduced portions of the judgment, in the context of the case in hand, leaves no iota of doubt that no indulgence can be shown in the present case as prima facie, the continuous mental agony caused to the deceased by the applicant for the reasons discussed above made the deceased person to commit suicide.
10. For the above mentioned reason, the present revision application merits no consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed being devoid of merits. Needless to mention that the observations made herein above will not influence the trial Court while conducting the trial and arriving at a judgment.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt Santosh Kumar Tiwari 2020.01.16 18:35:21 +05'30'