Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 841
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
Through Video Conferencing.
Gwalior, Dated :18.06.2021
Shri Mukesh Sharma, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Awasthy Counsel for the State.
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No. 273/2021 registered at Police Station
Gwalior Disst. Gwalior under Section 306 of IPC.
It is the case of the applicant that missing person report was
lodged. Thereafter it was found that the deceased has committed
suicide by jumping in front of a train. The allegations against the
applicant are that he was harassing the deceased as a result she
committed suicide. Thus, it is submitted that even if the entire
allegations are accepted as true, no offence under Section 306 of
I.P.C. would be made out.
Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the
applicant had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail and
this Court had considered the allegations in detail. It is submitted that
in fact the applicant is already married and still he was pressurizing
the deceased to marry him. Even parents had requested the applicant
not to behave in such a manner, but atrocities continued as a result
deceased committed suicide. It is submitted that if the allegations
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
made against the applicant are considered, then it appears that prima
facie offence of abetment of suicide has been made out.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
This Court by order dated 11.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
27345/2021 had rejected the application filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. The facts which have been mentioned in the said order are as
under:-
"It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant
that in fact the applicant had given lot of money to the
deceased and her mother and since, illegal demands
were being made by them therefore, he has been
falsely implicated."
"Per contra, the application is vehemently
opposed by the counsel for the State. According to the
prosecution case, the applicant was pressurizing the
deceased to marry him whereas he was already
married and has children. It is submitted that although,
the parents of the deceased had requested the
applicant not to be behave in such a manner but the
atrocities continued, as a result the deceased
committed suicide."
"It is the defence of the applicant that he has
given lot of money to the deceased on her demand. On
the other hand, it is the case of the prosecution that
although, the applicant was married, but still he was
pressurizing the deceased to marry him and was
harassing her. If both aspects are taken into
consideration, then it is clear that the applicant knew
the deceased and that is why he had given money to
her, but at the same time, he was also insisting her to
marry him inspite of the fact that he is already
married."
Section 306 of I.P.C. reads as under :-
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
"306. 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 extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
"Abetment" is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which reads
as under :-
"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.
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.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court
of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also
that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B
abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
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."
The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra
vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605,
while dealing with the term "instigation", held as under :-
4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
"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 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...."
The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State
of Uttaranchal reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 held as under :-
"17. The 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 abetted. The
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional
aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the
words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any
intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of
Punjab v. Iqbal Singh ((1991) 3 SCC 1), Surender v. State
of Haryana ((2006) 12 SCC 375, Kishori Lal v. State of
M.P.( (2007) 10 SCC 797) and Sonti Rama Krishna v.
Sonti Shanti Sree ((2009) 1 SCC 554)
18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that
instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a
particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down
to find out as to whether in a particular case there has
5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
been instigation which forced the person to commit
suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct
evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct
nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference
has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be
determined whether circumstances had been such which
in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally
frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing
with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a
court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view
that would evoke the presumption referred to under
Section 228 CrPC."
The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as
under :-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a
person abets the doing of 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."
Further, in para 12 of the judgment, it is held as under:
"The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do
some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or
incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary
concomitant of instigation."
The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs.
State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750 needs mentioned here. In
which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
6
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
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 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".
In the case of State of W.B. vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in
1994 (1) SCC 73 , the Supreme 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 of suicide should
be found guilty."
7
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State
represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in
AIR 2011 SC 1238 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 the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. The intention of the Legislature 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/she committed suicide."
The Supreme Court in the case of 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."
8
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 22585/2021
Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
In the case of 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.
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 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. 22585/2021 Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
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 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."
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 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. 22585/2021 Aman Parmar v. State of M.P and Anr.
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 it difficult to continue existence. '' 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.
Thus, if the allegations made against the applicant are considered, then it is clear that not only he is married but having children but still he was insisting the deceased to marry. Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage is void. Thus, infact the applicant was insisting the deceased to enter into a relationship which is not recognizable under law. In other words, the applicant wanted to keep the deceased as his "keep". By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this act would not amount to abetment to suicide.
Accordingly, no case is made out warranting quashment of FIR in Crime No. 273/2021 registered at Police Station Gwalior Distt.
Gwalior. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
ar Judge
ABDUR RAHMAN
2021.06.25
13:53:37 +05'30'