Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chain Singh Gurjar @ Panda Ji vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2017
1 Cr.R.No.3018/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
Cr.R. No.3018/2017
Chain Singh Gurjar @ Panda Ji,
S/o Bhanwar Ji Aged about 67
years, Agriculturist and Panditai,
R/o Village Ajmatnagar, P.S.
Ahmedpur, District-Sehore, M.P.
..........Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
through the Police Station
Ahmedpur, District-Sehore, M.P.
..........Respondent.
.................................................................................................................
Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
..................................................................................................................
Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
................................................................................................................
ORDER
(13-12-2017)
1. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.160/2017; whereby, a charge under Section 2 Cr.R.No.3018/2017 306 of the IPC was framed against petitioner Chain Singh Gurjar @ Panda Ji .
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Suraj Singh was a farmer. In addition thereto, he also took contracts for leveling uneven land and making it fit for cultivation. For aforesaid purpose, he used to take the JCB Machine of his brother-in-law Awdesh on hire and used to pay rent for the same. About three years, before the date of the incident, he had taken contract for leveling the land of petitioner/accused Chain Singh Gujar for Rs.2,70,000/-. However, the petitioner had paid only Rs.14,000/-, out of aforesaid amount. He declined to pay the remaining amount inspite of repeated protestations from the petitioner. About 8-10 days, before the date of the incident, deceased Suraj Singh and his brother Jasmat Singh had gone to Ajmatnagar to demand their dues from the petitioner. Deceased Suraj Singh had told the petitioner that his crops were ruined and he was in great financial difficulty. He also told the petitioner that if the petitioner would not pay his dues, the deceased would die; whereon, the petitioner had retorted that he would not pay the remaining amount and if the victim wanted to die, he could do so immediately. On being instigated by the petitioner in aforesaid manner and due to his refusal to repay his dues, deceased Suraj Singh, committed suicide by hanging from a tamarind tree in the morning of 04.07.2017.
3. Inviting attention to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if all allegations made 3 Cr.R.No.3018/2017 against him are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, his act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has contended that the petitioner had steadfastly refused to repay a large amount of Rs.2,56,000/-, which was due by him to the deceased for over three years. As a result, the deceased was in great financial difficulty. His creditors were pressing him for the amount and the petitioner was declining to repay the amount. Moreover, when the deceased warned him that if his dues were not cleared, he would commit suicide, the petitioner had challenged him stating that the deceased could die immediately, if he were so keen to die. In those circumstances, the deceased was under severe mental stress and as a result, committed suicide.
5. On perusal of the record and due consideration of the rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this criminal revision must succeed for reason herein after stated:
"Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".€
6. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:
"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 4 Cr.R.No.3018/2017 Thirdly- Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
7. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:
"To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it 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 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 been inferred. (Emphasis supplied)
8. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) that:
"20. 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.
21.The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court 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 committed suicide€....." (Emphasis supplied)
9. The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that: €œ "The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred".
5 Cr.R.No.3018/201710. Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 3 SCC 699, it was observed that:
"The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life."
11. On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2005 (2) M.P.L.J. 282= 2005 (2) JLJ 224 observed as hereunder:
"More so, in this case the accused has not 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 an instigation may have been inferred.
12. Likewise in the case of Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P., 2009 (2) M.P.L.J. 147, it was held that where the deceased committed suicide as a result of fraud practice upon him by his business partner and his resultant inability to repay his creditors, no case for abetment to commit suicide is made out.
13. In the instant case, it has been alleged that the deceased committed suicide because he felt that he has been cheated of a large amount by the petitioner. However, in the first information report, his brother Gajraj Singh had stated that there was loan on the head of deceased Suraj Singh; therefore, he had committed suicide. Aforesaid fact has been supported by Krishna Bai, wife of the deceased in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; wherein, she has stated that deceased was required to repay the debt of another Suraj Singh resident of Ahmedpur; however, since the 6 Cr.R.No.3018/2017 deceased had no money, he could not repay Suraj Singh; whereon, Suraj Singh had lodged report in police; therefore, the possibility that the deceased might have committed suicide due to the report lodged in Police Station by Suraj Singh, resident of Ahmedpur, cannot be discounted.
14. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner was not repaying the amount due by him to the deceased, the deceased had several legal options open to him. One of them obviously was to sue the petitioner for the amount due. However, instead of taking recourse to any legal option, he took the escapist route and committed suicide. It is true that Jasmat Singh has stated that the petitioner had asked the deceased to die immediately, if wanted to die but petitioner had no control over the life of the deceased.
15. The Supreme Court in the cases of Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P., 1995 SCC Supp. (3) 438, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 and Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal, 2012 Cr.L.J. 4925 (SC) has held that such exhortation to die in the heat of the moment without any real intent to instigate the deceased, does not amount to abetment of suicide.
16. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for abetment of suicide by the deceased because ingredients of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are missing in the incident. The deceased seems to have committed suicide not as a result of any abetment by the petitioner but as a result of a flaw in his mental make-up and his inability to face 7 Cr.R.No.3018/2017 adversity in life, for which the petitioner cannot be held legally liable.
17. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that no sufficient ground exists for proceeding with the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner. As such, the charge under Section 306 of the IPC framed by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law.
18. Consequently, this criminal revisions succeed. The order 06.10.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.160/2017 framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC is quashed.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2017.12.14 01:59:20 -08'00' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Cr. R. No.3018/2017 Chain Singh Gurjar @ Panda Ji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ORDER Post for : 13.12.2017 (C.V.Sirpurkar) Judge