Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J
Criminal Revision No.1967/2018
Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
=================
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.K. Singh, learned P.L. for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2, though served.
==================================
ORDER
Reserved on 05/12/2019 Passed on 06/01/2020 This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12/04/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, Distt. Hoshangabad in S.T.No.558/2017, whereby learned I ASJ framed charge against the applicant/accused Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar and co-accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhur Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506 (II) of the IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18/05/2017 deceased Kailash Patel himself consumed poisonous substance, due to which he died on 19/05/2017. Thus, he committed suicide. On that Police registered inquest No.24/2017 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and enquire into the matter. During the enquiry, Police recorded the statements of Rambabu, Bhagwat Singh, Nanakram and Smt. Narmadi Bai. On that, it was found that the deceased Kailash Patel had borrowed money from applicant Raghvendra and co- accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhav Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 2 Singh two months prior to the incident. They were asking for more money by putting undue pressure on him and they had also threatened him that if he will not give them money, then they would kill him. Due to which he had very scared of them. Because of which deceased Kailash Patel committed suicide. On that Police registered Crime No.236/2017 at Police Station Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 506, 34 of the IPC against applicant Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar and co- accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhur Singh and investigated the matter. During investigation Police recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Smt. Narmadi Bai, Nanakram, Bhagwat Singh Gujar & Rambabu and filed charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused before the JMFC, on that criminal case was registered. Learned JMFC committed the case to the Court of sessions. On that S.T.No.558/2017 was registered. During trial, learned I A.S.J. vide order dated 12/04/2018 framed charges against the applicant and co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506 (II) of the IPC. Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the charge-sheet no offence under Section 306, 506 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. It is alleged that deceased Kailash Patel committed suicide on 18/05/2017, while Police registered Crime No.236/17 on 06/06/2017. There is no specific allegation with respect to the role of the applicant as mentioned in the FIR as well as in the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation. It appears that Police only on the basis of the certain vague assertion made by the prosecution witnesses proceeded against the applicant. In the so-called oral dying declaration (Suicide Note), of the deceased and the statements of prosecution witnesses or in the FIR there is nothing which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. There is no reference to any positive act which the applicant has committed and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence on record to show as to indicate that applicant in any way goaded, urged or provoked the deceased or threatened Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 3 him to take such a step and as such charge of offence under Section 306/34, 506 (II) of the IPC would not be made out against applicant. On the strength of aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays that the order dated 12/04/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, Distt. Hoshangabad in S.T.No.558/2017, whereby learned I A.S.J. framed charge against the applicant/accused Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar for the offence offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506(II) of the IPC be set aside and applicant be discharged from that charges.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Rambabu, Bhagwat Singh, Nanakram and Smt. Narmadi Bai, it appears that the applicant and co-accused used to harassed deceased Kailash Patel and threatened him and pressurised him to gave excess money, due to which he committed suicide. Even, prior to his death the deceased had told that fact to the prosecution witnesses. In the case diary statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Rambabu, Bhagwat Singh, Nanakram and Smt. Narmadi Bai, it is mentioned that after consuming poisonous substance by the deceased when they were taking him to the hospital, he told them that he (Deceased Kailash Patel) had borrowed money from applicant Raghvendra and co- accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhur Singh two months prior to the incident. They demanded that money back from him and pressurised him to repay that amount and also threatened him that if he will not return the money, they would kill him. So, due to the harassment, he (Deceased Kailash Patel) consumed poisonous substance. So from the statements of prosecution witnesses offence under Section 306/34, 506 of the IPC prima facie made out against the applicant. At this stage this Court has no right to evaluate the statement of prosecution witnesses on merit. So, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506(II) of the IPC, hence the petition be dismissed.
5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties.
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 46. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 held as under :-
"Instigation Words "to go and die" uttered by the accused does not constitute ingredients of instigation Suicide committed after two days of quarrel Suicide showing that deceased was in a great stress and depression Charge under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 AIR (SC) 512, after considering various earlier judgments in para 15 observed that thus -
"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."
8. In the case of State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994 (1) SCC 73, also 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"
9. Coordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Babbi @ Jitendra Vs. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPHT 160 observed that :
"9. For making out an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is 'abetment' by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commit 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.Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 5
10. As per definition given in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted by:
(i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or
(ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
(iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
11. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act."
10. Apex court in the case of M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 observed as under :-
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, MO 1 letter and the oral evidence of PW 1 to PW 5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant-deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained."
11. It transpires from the above-mentioned judgements of the Apex Court that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of 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. It needs to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case whether the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
12. In the instant case also from the statements of prosecution witnesses it only appears that the deceased Kailash Patel had borrowed money from Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 6 applicant Raghvendra and co-accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhav Singh two months prior to the incident. They were asking for more money by putting undue pressure on him and they had also threatened to kill him if he did not give them money. Due to this he was very scared of them and committed suicide. But, merely on the ground that the deceased held the applicant and other co-accuased liable for his suicide in his oral suicide note, it cannot be assumed that the applicant abetted the deceased for committing suicide. For abetment to commit suicide there should be evidence of any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which lead or compelled the person to commit suicide. Besides, the accused must have possessed the knowledge or intention that his acts would lead the person to commit suicide. Without knowledge or intention, there can be no abatement. While the statements of the witnesses do not reveal the exact amount Kailash had borrowed from the applicant and other co-accused persons and how much the applicant and other co-accused were asking for in return. In this regard their statements are vague. While demanding their borrowed money back from deceased Kailash the applicant and other co-accused persons might have uttered some abusive words; or threatened him, but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC. There is no material to show that the applicant has intentionally aided or instigated the disease to end his life.
13. So in the considered opinion of this Court evidence collected against the applicant by the prosecution is totally insufficient to infer that the applicant abetted for suicide, he may be cause for the suicide, but not the abetter.
14. Likewise for proving the offence under Section 506 of IPC, words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it does not appear from the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses that the deceased felt, as a reasonable man, that the applicant was going to convert his words in action. It is also not clear from the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses if any Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 7 annoyance or criminal intimidation was caused to the deceased. So offence under section 506 part II is also not made out against that applicant from the charge-sheet.
15. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, from the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ingredients of Section 306 & 506 part II of Indian Penal Code are not established. So the charge of Section 306 & 506 part II of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 12/04/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, Distt. Hoshangabad framing charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 & 506 part II of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the order framing charge under Section 306 & 506 part II of the Indian Penal Code as regard to the applicant is set aside.
16. Accordingly, Revision is disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE as/-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59