Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manorama Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 111
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
(Smt. Manorama Bai and Others Vs. State of M. P.)
Indore, dated 31/01/2019
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rishi
Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The present petition has been filed for quashment of First
Information Report and subsequent proceedings arising out of First
Information Report registered at Crime No.59/2017 for offences
under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
02- The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner No.1 is the
grand mother of petitioner No.5 Kapil Sharma, who was married to
Monica Sharma (deceased), the petitioner No.2 is the father of the
petitioner No.5, petitioner No.3 is the mother of petitioner No.5,
petitioner No.4 is uncle of petitioner No.5 and petitioner No.5 is the
husband of the deceased.
03- A marriage took place between the petitioner No.5 Kapil
Sharma and the deceased wife Monica Sharma on 12/05/2009 and
they were living happily in a joint family at Indore. A child was born
out of the wedlock in the year 2010. An unfortunate incident took
place on 26/10/2016 in the matrimonial house of Smt. Monica
Sharma. She committed suicide by hanging. The death of Smt.
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-2-
Monica Sharma was inquired / investigated after registering an
inquest under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and a postmortem was done by the specialist. The reason assigned
for death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.
04- The death has taken place on 26/10/2016 and on 18/02/2017
a First Information Report was lodged by one Saligram
Raghuvanshi making allegations against the entire family members.
The police has recorded statements of family members and one
Shivkumar, who is brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the deceased has given
his statement on 21/02/2017 stating that the marriage took place on
12/05/2009, dowry was given in the marriage and a demand of
dowry was being made and Monica was being subjected to cruelty.
The statement of Shivkumar is available in Challan and the same
reads as under:-
**dFku
21&2&17
Fkkuk vUuiw.kkZ bUnkSj vi- dz- 59@17 /kkjk 498& A] 306] 34 IPC
uke & f'kodqekj firk jke oYyHk frokjh mez 48 o"kZ fu&¶ysV ua-
101] lkxj flVh vikVZesUV] fgek;r uxj 'ksM ua- 10 gsnjkckn eks-
ua- 9704337000 --viBfu;-- crk;k fd eS mijksDr irs ij jgrk gwW
rFkk gSnjkckn esa lsusVªh dk fctusl djrk gwW esjh llqjky gjnk esa
gS eksfudk esjh fj'rs esa lkyh yxrh Fkh gseUr dk izes --viBfu;--
gS] eksfudk dh 'kknh 12&5&09 dks dfiy 'kekZ ds lkFk bUnkSj ls
gqbZ Fkh 'kknh esa 40 rksyk lksuk] lok fdyks pkanh ds tsoj o vU;
lkexzh dqy :i;s 20]00]000 chl yk[k :i;s 'kknh esa f[kykus
fiykus esa 05 yk[k :i;s [kpZ gqbZ Fks 'kknh ds Ms<+ lky ckn
eksfudk ds ,d yM+dk ,s'o;Z gqvk Fkk 'knh ds ckn ls gh :i;ksa
dh eaxuh llqjky okys --viBfu;--dgus yxs rsjs HkkbZ gseUr ls
:i;k ysdj vk diM+ksa dk 'kks:e [kksyuk gS blh ckr dks ysdj
ifr dfiy 'kekZ] llqj d`".kpUn 'kekZ] lkl lq'khyk nsoh] vkaVh
euksjek] pkpk llqj xksiky 'kekZ 'kkjhfjd :i ,oa ekufld :i ls
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-3-
izrkfM+r djrs Fks blh ckr dks ysdj eksfudk us 26&10&16 Qkalh
yxk yh A eksfudk us vkrs tkrs esa ckrs esjs dks o mldh cfgu
lkfjdk ,oa ifjokj okyks fj'rsnkjksa dks crk;k eksfudk dh ekSr ds
tqEesnkj mldk ifr dfiy 'kekZ llqj d`".k pUnz 'kekZ] lkl
lq'khyk nsoh vkaVh euksjek pkpk llqj xksiky 'kekZ tqEesnkj gS A
gLrk@& 21&2&17**
The real brother of the deceased Prem Kumar has also given
statement to the police on 20/02/2017 and the statement of Prem
Kumar also reads as under:-
**dFku
20&2&17
Fkkuk vUuiw.kkZ bUnkSj vi- dz- 59@17 /kkjk 498& A] 306] 34 IPC
iszedqekj firk HkhdepUnz O;kl mez 46 o"kZ fu- 179 x.ks'k 'kadj
fo/kkFkhZ okMZ lR;ukjk;.k eafnj ds ikl gjnk ¼e-iz-½ 9826075175
us --viBfu;--crk;k fd eS mijksDr irs ij jgrk gwW rFkk ftyk
lgdkjh cSad gks'kaxkckn esa fyfid ds in ij dk;Zjr gWWAw esjh
eksfudk fj'rs esa cfgu Fkh esjh cfgu eksfudk dh 'kknh 12-5-09 esa
bUnkSj ds dfiy 'kekZ ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA 'kknh esa 40 rksyk lksuk
Tosyjh o lok fdyks pkanh dk ?kjsyq lkeku vkfn fn;k ftldh
dqy dher 20]00]000 : 20 yk[k :i;s Fkh [kkusihus esa 5
yk[k :i;k [kpZ fd;s Fks eksfudk dh 'kknh esa dqy 25]00]000 :-
[kpZ fd;s FksA 'kknh ds ckn ls gh mlds llqjky okys ifr dfiy
'kekZ lkl lq'khyk nsoh] vkaVh euksjek] pkpk llqj xksiky 'kekZ
llqj d`".k 'kekZ :i;ksa ds fy, 'kkjhfjd :i ,oa ekufld :i ls
izrkfM+r djrs FksA eksfudk dks ,d yM+dk ,s'o;Z gqvk Fkk :i;ksa
vius HkkbZ gseUr ysdj gesa diM+s dk 'kks:e [kksyuk gS blh ckr
dks ysdj eksfudk us 26&10&16 dks Qkalh yxk yh ;s ckr eksfudk
us vkrs tkrs esjs dks ,oa ifjokj okyksa ,oa fj'rsnkjksa dks crk;h Fkh]
eksfudk dh ekSr ds tqEesnkj mldk ifr dfiy 'kekZ] llqj d`".k
pUnz 'kekZ] lkl lq'khyk nsoh] vkaVh euksjek] pkpk llqj xksiky
'kekZ tqEesnkj gSA
gLrk@& 20&2&17**
The statement of both the persons are word by word identical.
They are omnibus statement making allegations against all the
family members. No specific instance attracting the ingredients of
Section 498-A finds place in the statements of the aforesaid
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-4-
persons.
05- The another important aspect of the case is that deceased
Monica has left two suicide notes. The first suicide note is at page
No.149 of the Challan and the same reads as under:-
**esjh ,d fourh gS esjs csVs ,s'o;Z dks cgqr i<+kuk mls
MkWDVj cukuk og 'kjkjrh gS mldk /;ku j[kuk ,s'kw vius ikik ls
cgksr I;kj djrk gS mls ikik ls vyx er djukA ,s'o;Z dks
mlds ikik ds ikl gh jgus nsukA
,s'o;Z dh ijofj'k mlds ikik gh djsaA
esjh ekSr dk ftEesnkj dksbZ ugh gSA**
The aforesaid suicide note is duly signed by the deceased
Monica and the second suicide note is at page No.150 and the
same reads as under:-
**essjh ,d fourh gS esjs csVs ,s'o;Z dks cgqr i<+kuk mls
MkWDVj cukuk og 'kjkjrh gS mldk /;ku j[kukA ,s'o;Z dks mlds
ikik ds ikl gh jgus nsuk ogh mldh ijofj'k djs
esjh ekSr dk ftEesnkj dksbZ ugh gSA**
At page No.209 of the Challan, Tasdeek Nama by cousin
sister of the deceased finds place and she has verified the
handwriting of the deceased. Not only this, the suicide notes were
recovered from the room of the deceased, where she was found
hanging.
06- Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri
Rishi Tiwari has argued before this Court that based upon omnibus
statement, the entire family has been roped in. The death has taken
place after seven years of marriage and there is in fact no evidence
on record on the basis of which, the crime can be established and
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-5-
the registration of FIR is nothing but an after thought to harass the
entire family at the behest of the parents of Monica on account of
unfortunate incident, which has taken place.
07- To bolster his contentions, he has placed reliance upon a
judgment delivered in the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 5 SCC 177, Vipin Jaiswal
(A-I) Vs. State of Aandhra Pradesh reported in (2013) 3 SCC 684
and lastly has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abhay Kumar Katare
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No.5952/2018, decided on
26/03/2018).
08- On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and
his contention is that at this stage sufficiency and insufficiency of the
evidence cannot be looked into as this Court is dealing with a case
of quashment of criminal proceedings and in case there is no
evidence, the petitioners will certainly be acquitted by the trial Court.
09- He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the
Postmortem Report and he has stated that there was an injury also
over the body of the deceased. He has stated that the family
members of the Monica have stated against all of the petitioners
and it is not a case warranting interference by this Court in exercise
of power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-6-
Procedure, 1973.
10- This Court has carefully gone through the entire record made
available by the petitioners as well as by respondent / State. The
undisputed facts reveal that death has taken place after seven
years of marriage. There is a child also aged about 09 years and
there is no statement of child available on record neither he is a
witness. The stereo type statement of brother-in-law and real
brother, which have been reproduced earlier certainly speaks
volumes about the entire episode and the entire case, which is
registered against the present petitioners. The statements do not
specify any specific instances except for the bald statement against
the entire family including 87 years old mother-in-law.
11- It is nobody's case that the deceased has not left behind any
suicide note nor it has been argued by the State Government that
suicide notes were planted later on. In fact the police has recovered
those suicide notes and the handwriting of the deceased has been
verified by her own family members. In the suicide notes there is no
whisper of any kind of cruelty nor any kind of demand of dowy on
the part of the petitioners.
12- Apart from the statement of the relatives, which were
recorded by the police after about four months of the incident, there
is nothing on record even to establish prima-facie that the
petitioners have committed offence under Section 498-A of the
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-7-
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The suicide has taken place on
26/10/2016 and the First Information Report was lodged only on
18/02/2017. Had it been a case of cruelty or a case of of abetment
to commit suicide, nothing prevented the parents of the girl or other
relatives to lodge a FIR with quite promptitude.
13- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girdhar Shankar
Tawade (Supra) in paragraphs No.3, 14 and 18 has held as under:-
"3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid
'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory
meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before. Two specific
instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning
to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the legislatures :
Whereas explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz., (i)
to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury
or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical,
and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation
(b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought
it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the
legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the
physical injury : whereas one is patent, the other one is latent
but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since
the same would also embrance the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms
of Section 498-A.
14. Presently, we have on record a statement before the
Executive Magistrate by was of a declaration which however
does not lend any assistance in the matter in issue and as such
we need not dilate thereon further.
18. A faint attempt has been made during the course of
submissions that explanation (a) to the Section stands attracted
and as such no fault can be attributed to the judgment. This, in
our view, is a wholly fallacious approach to the matter by reason
of the specific finding of the trial Court and the High Court
concurred therewith that the death unfortunately was an
accidental death and not suicide. If suicide is left out, then in that
event question of applicability of explanation (a) would not arise -
neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb
or health would be attracted. In any event the willful act or
conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home
the charge under Section 498- A and not de-hors the same. To
have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum
taken note of in the matter of a charge under Section 498-A. The
legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular
reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-8-
of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of
explanation (b). The letters by itself though may depict a
reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the
charge of Section 498-A against the accused. Acquittal of a
charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not
by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some
cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section
498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be
maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on
record."
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, by no stretch of
imagination, it can be held that even prima-facie offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC has been committed by the present
petitioners.
14- The apex Court in the case of Vipin Jaiswal (Supra) in
paragraphs No.4, 8, 13, 14 and 16 has held as under:-
"4. At the trial, besides other witnesses, the prosecution
examined the father of the deceased (informant) as PW 1, the
cousin of PW 1 as PW 2 and the mother of the deceased as PW
4. The appellant volunteered to be a witness and got examined
himself as DW 1 and took the defence that the deceased had left
behind a suicide note written by her one day before her death in
which she has stated that she had committed suicide not on
account of any harassment by the appellant and her family
members but due to the harassment by her own parents.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the
suicide note (Ext. D-19) is concerned, the same cannot be
believed to have been written by the deceased who was only a
matriculate and the High Court has given good reasons in the
impugned judgment why the suicide note cannot be believed to
have been written by the deceased. He argued that in any case
only on the basis of the evidence given by DW1, the Court
cannot hold that the suicide note had been written by the
deceased and not by someone else. He submitted that since the
prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased had been
subjected to not only a demand of dowry but also cruelty soon
before her death, the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly
held the appellant guilty both under Sections 304B and 498A,
IPC.
13. What DW1 has further stated is relevant for the
purpose of his defence and is quoted hereinbelow:
"While cleaning our house we found a chit on our dressing
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
-9-
table. The said chit was written by my wife and it is in her
handwriting and it also contains her signature. Ex. D 19 is
the said chit. I identified the handwriting of my wife in Ex.
D19 because my wife used to write chits for purchasing of
monthly provisions as such on tallying the said chit and Ex.
D19 I came to know that it was written by my wife only.
Immediately I took the Ex. D19 to the P.S. Mangalhat and
asked them to receive but they refused to take the same."
From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that while cleaning the
house the appellant came across a chit written in the handwriting
of his wife and containing her signature. This chit has been
marked as Ext. D-19 and the appellant has identified the
handwriting and signature of the deceased in Ext. D19 which is
written in Hindi.
14. The English translation of Ext.D19 reproduced in the
impugned judgment of the High Court is extracted hereinbelow:
"I, Meenakshi W/o Vipin Kumar, do hereby execute and
commit to writing this in my sound mind, consciousness
and senses and with my free will and violation to the effect
that nobody is responsible for my death. My parents family
members have harassed much to my husband. I am taking
this step as I have fed up with his life. Due to me the
quarrels are taking place here, as such I want to end my
life and I beg to pardon by all."
It appears from Ext. D19 that the deceased has written the chit
according to her free will saying that nobody was responsible for
her death and that her parents and family members have
harassed her husband and she was taking the step as she was
fed up with her life and because of her quarrels were taking
place.
16. In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the
appellant) and Ext.D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the
prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to
harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In
our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the
essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the
accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to
cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC.
Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry
death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to
prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty
caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death.
Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither
of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been
made out by the prosecution."
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and by taking into
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 10 -
account the statement of the family members and also the delay in
lodging the FIR as well as the Postmortem Report, this Court is of
the opinion that ingredients of harassment or cruelty under Section
498-A nor any offence under Section 304-B of the IPC has been
made out by the prosecution.
15- The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abhay
Kumar Katare (Supra) was dealing with a case of suicide by an
employee and the allegation was against the senior officers of the
Company. This Court in the aforesaid case in paragraphs No.6 to 15
has held as under:-
"6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it shall be
useful to reiterate the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the jurisdictional issues, firstly; the scope of jurisdiction
of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., in the matter of
quashment of the criminal proceedings and secondly; the
meaning, concept and dimension of abetment as defined under
section 107 IPC with reference to the offence of the abetment of
suicide defined under section 306 IPC.
In R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized categories of cases where
the High Court can and should exercise its inherent powers to
uash the proceedings and amongst them is a case; where the
allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence alleged.
In Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi and others, AIR 1976 SC 1947; the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the proceedings against the accused can be
quashed; where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the
accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.
In State of Haryana & others Vs. Bhajan Lal & others,
AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
exhaustively reviewing the entire case law on the scope of
jurisdiction of the High Court has given exhaustive guidelines as
regards the scope of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., and
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 11 -
one of the circumstance is; where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., & others Vs.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another, AIR 2005 SC 9, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would
be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
intimation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be
quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto."
Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Devendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2009) 7 SCC 495:
"There is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned
propositions of law. However, it is now well-settled that the
High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the
allegations made in the First Information Report, even if
given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do
not make out any offence. 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."
7. Section 306 IPC defined "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."
8. The word 'suicide' is not defined in IPC. However, its
literal meaning is well known. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means
'killing', i.e., "self-killing". The suicide by itself is not an offence
under the Penal Code. However, attempt to suicide is an offence
under section 309 IPC as the successful offender committing
suicide is beyond the reach of law.
9. Section 107 IPC defined 'Abetment' and 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
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 12 -
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes places 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.
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section
107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of anact,
does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act."
10. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh AIR
2001 SC 3837, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lucidly examined
the dimensions of meaning 'instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:
"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 he 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. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
11. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal &
Another AIR 1994 SC 1418, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that if it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the
society, to which the victim belonged and suchpetulance, discord
and difference 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 the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.
12. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt
with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and
"goading". The court opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused.
13. In M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SC 1238, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while reviewing almost the entire case law with
reference to section 306 IPC has laid down the meaning and
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 13 -
concept of the word 'abetment". Paragraphs 45 and 46 reads as
under:
"45. 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.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this court are 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."
14. Therefore, to constitute the commission of an offence
of abetment of suicide, an element of mens rea is an essential
ingredient as the abetment involves a mental preparedness with
an intention to instigation, provoke, insight or encourage to do an
act or a thing. Besides, such process of instigation etc., must
have close proximity with the act of commission of suicide.
Therefore, a person cannot be accused or punished for an
offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, unless;
the aforesaid requirement of law is satisfied as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay
Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC
1998 and Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and
another (2010) 8 SCC 628.
15. In the backdrop of the factual matrix of the case in
hand detailed in the preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that the
deceased joined the Company in the year 2011 and continued
for a period of six years. During this period, on many occasions,
he sought to be relieved of his duties for personal reasons. In
email dated 03/11/2012 (Annexure P/4) while intending to resign,
he has also expressed his gratitude to the Management for
giving him opportunities and support during his service tenure.
The request was accepted by S.K.Grover on the same day by an
email dated 03/11/2012 assuring him to be relieved on
10/12/2012, however,he continued to work. Thereafter, on
12/09/2014, he sent another email addressed to the applicant
with a copy to S.K.Grover expressing his intention for resignation
as Section Officer wherein also he has expressed his gratitude
for working in the Company. As such, he dropped the idea of
leaving the Company and further continued as evident from the
email of September, 2014. As a matter of fact, the deceased
himself withdrew the resignation twice on the premise that his
personal problem was solved and continued to discharge his
duties. As such, the communication referred above do not
contain allegations of the nature the applicant is accused of in
the FIR.
The communication dated 28/04/2017 was made by the
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 14 -
applicant through email to the superior officer, S.K.Grover
bringing to his notice the shortcomings in the day to day working
of the accounting system with a copy to the deceased and
another co-worker J.P.Yadav wherein, he has pointed out the
lapses and negligence in the discharge of duties by both of them
with a request to take some hard action or in the alternative they
may be transferred to a different department.
This email finds reference in the alleged email suicide
note dated 15/05/2017 while the deceased accused the
applicant of causing him harm which led to commission of
suicide.
S.K.Grover vide email dated 29/04/2017 called upon the
deceased and Yadav for explanation.
The deceased appeared to have taken strong exception
and instead of offering explanation had taken extreme stand
seeking termination from service or transfer to some other place
with immediate effect by an email dated 03/05/2017.
That apart, if the subsequent email exchanges of the
deceased, viz., 25/05/1997 and 11/09/2017 are perused, the
deceased had not made allegations of harassment, cruelty or
incitement tantamounting to provocation by the applicant to take
the extreme step of committing suicide. In fact, while tendering
resignation by email dated 02/09/2017, the deceased sought to
be relieved at the earliest (by 10th September) and expressed
his gratitude and appreciation for all the members of the staff
while discharging the duties. However, for the first time the
deceased made allegations of discontentment in the day to day
working, sarcastic comments, arrogant behaviour and induction
of a new accounts officer, etc., against the applicant.
After acceptance of resignation of the deceased by the
Executive Director & Business Head, DCM Shriram with effect
from 11/09/2017, he sent an email on 11/09/2017 addressed to
the applicant and other officers recording his appreciation to the
staff members during his service tenure but, there was no
allegation of any kind against the applicant.
There is no allegation in the suicide note/email dated
15/09/2017 or in the challan that the deceased and the applicant
either communicated or met with each other between 11/09/2017
and 15/09/2017. As such, neither with reference to the email of
the applicant addressed to S.K.Grover dated 28/04/2017 nor that
of the deceased email dated 02/09/2017 could be said to be
having nexus or proximity with the alleged act of committing
suicide on 15/09/2017.
Facts and circumstances do not suggest mental
preparedness of the applicant with an intention to provoke, incite
or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. As a matter of fact,
the deceased committed suicide after four days of cessation
from employmentwith the Company.
A careful reading of the record also suggests that the
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 15 -
deceased was rushed to the Bombay Hospital, Indore on
15/09/2017 by dialing number 100. The family members of the
deceased were also present during his treatment and thereafter
he died on 17/09/2017. The police did not record the statement
of any members of the family on the said date. Thereafter, the
suicide note is reportedly presented before the police by the
brother of the deceased on 19/09/2017. The statement of Rani
wife of the deceased was recorded on 04/10/2017, i.e., after
unexplained delay of about 17 days from the date of death of the
deceased and that of other family members; wherein she
allegedly said that the deceased had told her that the applicant
used to harass, insult and threatened. It is a queer fact that none
of the family members of the deceased including his wife
despite, having the alleged knowledge ever lodged any
complaint in the Police Station or made any complaint to the
police in the hospital where the deceased was admitted.
The police has also not recorded the statement of the
deceased during the period 15/09/2017 to 17/09/2017, when he
died.
It appears that there was noticeable improvement in the
statements of the same witnesses recorded on 04/10/2017 and
07/11/2017, i.e., wife, Rani and mother, Smt. Sunita Vyas of the
deceased.
There is no reason forthcoming why the prosecution has
not recorded the statement of J.P.Yadav who was also
admonished alongwith the deceased in the matter of negligence
and dereliction of duties by the applicant in his email dated
28/04/2017 to the superior officer, S.K.Grover.
In the challan papers, there is no material to suggest or
attributable positive act on the part of the applicant that he had
an intention to push the deceased to commit suicide.
The Magistrate has not applied the mind while taking the
cognizance and appears to have passed the impugned
cognizance order (Annexure P/2) in a mechanical manner.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the material on
record do not suggest mental preparedness of the applicant with
an intention to provoke, incite or instigate the deceased to
commit suicide attributable to his official duties or otherwise to
fulfill the ingredients of abetment for constituting an offence
under section 306 IPC in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases."
16- This Court has allowed the petition preferred under Section
482 in the aforesaid case. In the present case also facts and
circumstances do not suggest mental preparedness of the
applicants with an intention to instigate, provoke, incite or
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 16 -
encourage to commit suicide. The suicide notes left by her does not
implicates the petitioners at all.
17- The First Information Report has been lodged after four
months. Not only this, there is no evidence on record to establish
even prima-facie that the petitioners have committed offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC. The brother and the brother-in-law in their
statements are referring to some incident of the year 2013 and on
the basis of some earlier incident of the year 2013, an attempt has
been made to rope in the present petitioners for offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC.
18- This Court, after careful consideration of the entire material on
record in the facts and circumstance of the case, is of the opinion
that the material on record do not suggest mental preparedness of
the petitioners with an intention to provoke, incite or instigate the
deceased and therefore, the First Information Report and the
consequent criminal proceedings arising out of First Information
Report No.59/2017, Police Station Annapurna, Indore are hereby
quashed.
19- With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA)
JUDGE
Tej
Digitally signed by
Tej Prakash Vyas
Date: 2019.02.02
12:59:12 +05'30'
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
- 17 -
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. C. SHARMA
M. Cr. C. No.17519/2018
Smt. Manorama Bai and Others
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
Counsel for the Parties : Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior
Counsel with Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Whether approved for : Yes
reporting
Law laid down : (1) 'Abetment' - Involves a mental
preparedness of a person to instigate
or intentionally aiding a person in
doing a thing. Without a positive act
on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide
- no offence can be said to be made.
(2) The intention of the Legislature is
that to convict a person under
section 306 IPC, there has to be a
clear mens rea and close proximate
link to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act
which facilitating the act of
commission of suicide by the
deceased.
Significant paragraph : 13 to 19
numbers
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 31st of January, 2019) (S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej