Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2020
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1
M.Cr.C No. 28944/2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 28944/2019
(Rohit Lodhi Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated : 9/11/2019
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant seeking quashment of the FIR dated 25/01/19 bearing crime no. 46/19 registered for the offence under section 306 of IPC in police station Bahoriband, District Katni (M.P.) and further consequential proceedings thereof.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Ku. Laxmi Lodhi was in love relationship with the applicant from last one year and she wanted to marry with the applicant but as the applicant had refused to perform marriage with her therefore, she has committed suicide in the midnight between 21/06/2018 & 22/06/2018 by consuming poisonous substance (salfas). On such allegation, FIR has been registered against the applicant for the offence as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has not applied its mind and has mechanically framed the aforesaid charge. In the charge-sheet, there is no material available against the applicant to frame the aforesaid charge. If the entire allegations levelled against the applicant is assumed to be correct, then also necessary ingredients to constitute the abetment to commit suicide is not attracted. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained and inordinate delay of about more than 6 months on the basis of suicidal note left by the deceased and produced by her 2 M.Cr.C No. 28944/2019 father Govind Lodhi at a too much later stage. There is no material on record to indicate that the applicant in any way goaded, urged or provoked the deceased Laxmi Lodhi to take steps to commit suicide. The deceased during his life time had never reported any kind of allegations or whispering to anyone in order to alleged that the present applicant is causing mental harassment to the deceased. After the death of the deceased, patently false, frivolous and vexatious allegations have been made against the applicant. There is lack of necessary ingredient required for constituting the offence for abetment of suicide. The only allegation made against the applicant is that he refused to marry with the deceased, as per her suicidal note, which cannot be said to be an ingredient for abetment to commit suicide. It is submitted that if the available material be taken in toto, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, prayer is made to quash the FIR bearing crime no. 46/19 lodged against the applicant.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for quashment of FIR stating that applicant has a right to raise the ground which can be taken in defence at the stage of defence during trial. At present court has to see only whether FIR discloses prima facie commission of aforesaid offence or not? Therefore, the petition has no substance and it be dismissed.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this Court, the prosecution case is based only on the allegation that applicant had refused to marry with the deceased therefore, she has committed suicide. Considering the evidence available on record this Court is of the opinion that if all the facts advanced by the prosecution are 3 M.Cr.C No. 28944/2019 assumed to be true then also in view of the Section 107 read with section 306 of IPC, no offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998. The relevant paragraphs are mentioned as under:-
7. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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.
8. Before we advert further, at this stage we may notice a few decisions of this Court, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case.
9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased "to go and die". This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased "to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
10. In Mahendra Singh v . State of M.P . [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in- law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
11. This Court, considering the definition of "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, found that the 4 M.Cr.C No. 28944/2019 charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
12. In Ramesh Kumar v . State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] this Court was considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set herself on fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
The deceased has committed the suicide in depressed state of mind for which it cannot be said that applicant has abetted him to commit suicide. The Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 has held as under:-
18. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, 5 M.Cr.C No. 28944/2019 discord and differences which happen in our day-
today life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
19. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)[(2009) 16 SCC 605 :
(2009) 11 Scale 24] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
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.
The suicidal note has been produced by later on by the father of deceased in which the cause for commission of suicide was denial from marriage by the applicant. The High Court in the case of Aarti Arya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2008 (1) MPHT 483 has held that accepting these allegations as they were, it could not be said that the applicant 'incited' or 'instigated' the deceased to commit suicide.
6 M.Cr.C No. 28944/2019In the present case also there is no essential ingredients for the offence of abetment to commit suicide as the only allegation against the applicant is for denial to perform the marriage with the deceased. The deceased in a fit of frustration and depression has committed suicide. If applicant has denied to perform marriage the deceased was having other recourse of law but she took the step of commission of suicide. The applicant never wanted or desired that deceased should commit suicide. Hence, applicant cannot be prosecuted for commission of offece punishable under section 306 of IPC only because he has refused to perform marriage with the deceased Laxmi.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is crystal clear that prima facie there are absolutely no necessary ingredients available to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and the applicant cannot be prosecuted on the basis of material available on record therefore, criminal proceeding against the applicant is nothing but merely abuse of process of law. Hence, this petition is allowed and the FIR vide crime no. 46/19 registered against the applicant for the offence u/s 306 of IPC at police station Bahoriband, District Katni and subsequent proceedings against the applicant are hereby quashed.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerning court, P.S. Bahoriband, District Katni (M.P.) for information.
(Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Judge navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2020.01.14 11:28:40 +05'30'