Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Rokade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2018
M.Cr.C. No.28512/2018 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28512/2018
(Mukesh Rokade vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated:28/08/2018
Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, 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 02/11/2017 passed by learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No. 498/2017 whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for commission of the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
02. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 18/04/2016, Police station Kannadiya got an information that deceased Rahul Jain committed suicide by hanging himself at his house. On the basis of said information police lodged Merg intimation No. 24/2016 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C and investigated the matter. During investigation of Merg police seized one suicide note from the possession of deceased's father Ramchandra from his house in which it was mentioned that the present applicant/accused along with other co- accused Manish had extorted lakhs of rupees from the deceased and they threatened to kill him due to which the deceased committed suicide. On the basis of which, the police registered FIR for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC at Crime no. 135/2017 on 11/03/2017. The police arrested the applicant and after completion of M.Cr.C. No.28512/2018 2 investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
03. Learned trial Court, after perusal of entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 02/11/2017 came to the conclusion that prima-facie, charge under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present petition before this Court.
04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
05. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the sole document, on which the prosecution case rests is the suicide note, alleged to have been written by the deceased Rahul Jain before committing suicide, wherein he has only stated that applicant Mukesh Rokade and co-accused Manish were responsible for his death. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is nowhere stated in the alleged suicide note that the applicant / accused had ever instigated or provoked the deceased Rahul Jain for commission of suicide and if the applicant / accused had extorted lakhs of rupees from the deceased asking him to execute the sale deed, then by his act itself, ingredients of instigation for commission of suicide are lacking and the offence under section 306 of IPC cannot be made out against the applicant. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC.
06. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Pappu @ Shankarlal Soni vs. State of M.P reported in 2017(1) MPLJ ( Cri) 47, State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh reported in AIR 1991 SC 1532; Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618; Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433 in which it is laid down that if ingredients of commission of suicide, which is defined M.Cr.C. No.28512/2018 3 under section 107 of IPC are not proved by the prosecution, then certainly, charge under section 306 of IPC cannot be framed. Abetment to commit suicide is an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. Expression " Abetment " has been defined in section 107 of IPC, 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. "
07. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 ( Suppl) Cr.L.R ( SC) 261 / (2010) 1 SCC 750, Hon'ble Supreme 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 persons 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 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 M.Cr.C. No.28512/2018 4 unsustainable."
08. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017( 1 SCC (Cri) 134 is held as under:-
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that a person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC."
09. 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 commits suicide."
10. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 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 the accused is responsible for his death. It was held that the word " go and die" do not constitute instigation for mens rea of offence under section 306 of IPC.
M.Cr.C. No.28512/2018 511. On perusal of the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased Rahul Jain, it is apparent that applicant Mukesh Rokade and co-accused Manish had extorted lakhs of rupees from him and he had nothing remained and they threatened to kill him. From the suicide note, it does not appear that the applicant had harassed the deceased to extort money. The allegations made against the applicant in the suicide note or in the statements of the witnesses, even if taken true at their face value does not prima-facie indicates that the applicant by positive act on his part incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the aforesaid premises continuation of the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC will be nothing, but an exercise in futility .
12. In the the aforesaid premises, prima-facie, no charge under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby made out against the applicant.
13. Consequently, present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. The impugned order dated 02/11/2017 framing charge under section 306 of IPC against applicant-Mukesh Rokade is hereby quashed and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charge.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.08.30 15:10:49 +05'30'