Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankita Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
6
Criminal Revision No.1172/2016
Ankita Goyal vs. State of M.P.
Indore, Dated: 06/02/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.R.
Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
1. By this present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is being aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge,Ujjain, District-Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.159/2016 (Annexure P/1) in which the trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 305 of the IPC.
2. As per prosecution case, on 10.2.2014, Police Station Chimanganj Mandi Ujjain received an information that one dead body was lying in the Undasa pond (Talab), which is identified as deceased Pawan,who was studying in Class-9 th in Active English High School, Ujjain and he has committed suicide. On this information, the Police registered a merg and during the enquiry Police seized a suicide note in which it was mentioned that the present petitioner and one another Teacher used to threat him and demand of money. Due to this reason, Pawan has committed suicide. The Police sent the suicide note to the hand writing expert and after received the expert report, registered a crime for offence under Section 305 of the IPC against the present petitioner and another Teacher.
3. The Trial Court, after considering the charge-sheet, concluded that the material available on record is enough for framing charges punishable for offence under Section 305 of IPC against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 6 Criminal Revision No.1172/2016 Ankita Goyal vs. State of M.P. framing the charges, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since last 7-8 years, seven children of Khem Chand Khatri's family are studying in the School in various standards. The deceased was also studying in 9th Class. He was studying from 3rd standard. His all fees were also deposited by his father along with the fees of other brothers and sisters of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased used to remain absent from the class. He was absent from 7.2.2014 to 10.2.2014 without intimation or application, therefore, the Class Teacher informed to the present petitioner regarding absence of the deceased. On this information the petitioner contacted the parents of the deceased on telephone and on the same day i.e. 10.2.2014 the father and grandfather of the deceased came at the School and they informed the petitioner that the deceased Pawan was regularly leaving for School from the home and they assured that they will sort-out the reason regarding absence of the deceased. On the next day the petitioner came to know that Pawan Khatri (deceased) committed suicide by drowning himself in the pond. It is further submitted that after the incident, statements of father Khemchand Khatri, mother Varsha of the deceased, Khatri, Chandni Nilesh, Manoj and other students of the same school were recorded. They never alleged any allegation regarding demand of money or threat by the present petitioner. During his lifetime also the deceased never informed his parents about any threat given by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no prima-facie ingredients available in the charge sheet about the harassment or abetment THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 6 Criminal Revision No.1172/2016 Ankita Goyal vs. State of M.P. against the petitioner. There is no direct or indirect evidence about the abetmnent to commit suicide or instigation. Under these circumstances, offence under Section 305 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the revision petition No.962/2016 filed by the co-accused Pankaj Bhatnagar was allowed and the impugned order has already been set aside by this Court. Hence, on the grounds of parity, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and also prays for allowing the revision petition.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that Pawan Khatri (deceased) had committed suicide because the petitioner used to threat him. Since the deceased had committed suicide due to the conduct of the petitioner, the trial Court did not commit any error in framing charges under Section 305 of the IPC.
6. I have considered the facts of the case and rival contentions of the parties.
7. The question in the present revision as to whether considering and accepting the entire material available on record, is absolutely true, prima-facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC would be made out against the petitioner?
8. The aforesaid facts failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 305 of the IPC because the reason to commit suicide and abetement to commit suicide cannot be equated and for the purpose of Section 305 of the IPC it can be used simultaneously or interchangeably. The deceased committed suicide for the alleged threat, but it is not enough to prosecute a person for offence under Section 305 of IPC unless the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 6 Criminal Revision No.1172/2016 Ankita Goyal vs. State of M.P. ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC is to be satisfied, which are reproduced 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."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another, reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, the allegations levelled were as under:
"An enquiry was conducted by the Security Officer of the University, the appellant herein, regarding the theft of a mobile phone. A dispute arose between the deceased and H. The deceased committed suicide during the course of enquiry, by jumping in from of a train, leaving a suicide note. In the suicide note it is stated that he did not commit the theft and he had committed suicide because he was falsely implicated in the theft case of a mobile phone."
25. 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 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. When the appellant was in no manner connected with this case and there was no credible material to connect the appellant with the crime, it would be a futile exercise to compel him to undergo a criminal trial.
10. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal:
reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 6 Criminal Revision No.1172/2016 Ankita Goyal vs. State of M.P. 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 transpires 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 the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
11. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P:
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:
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 - 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 committs suicide. - Also, reiterated, 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 such petulance, 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. - Herein, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 6 Criminal Revision No.1172/2016 Ankita Goyal vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 has observed thus:-
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 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she commits suicide.
13. Looking to the facts of the case, it is found that the alleged threat may be caused for committing suicide, but would not amount to abetment to commit the same as defined in Section 107 of IPC and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no evidence with regard to provocation, incitement or encouragement for commitment of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in framing charge against the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC.
14. Taking this view of the matter, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is hereby set aside and the petitioner Ankita Goyal is discharged from the commission of offence under Section 305 of the IPC.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE