Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Singh Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53545 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. BHAGWAN SINGH MEENA S/O HAR PRASAD
MEENA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST SEMARI KALA NAGARNIGAM
WARD NO 84 KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. VEERENDRA MEENA S/O BHAGWAN SINGH
MEENA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE VILLAGE SEMRI KALA NAGRA
NIGARM WARD NO. 84 KOLAR ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH DATT - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR P.S. KOLAR
ROAD DIST BHOPAL P.S. KOLAR ROAD DIST BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AKHILENDRA SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 for quashing of charge- sheet and final report filed against the petitioner by police station Kolar Road, District Bhopal in Crime No.488 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and the proceedings consequential thereto.
2. An FIR has been lodged against the present applicants and three other Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 2 persons. The allegations of the FIR are that on 16.12.2018, the deceased Sitaram was at his home at 8:30 PM in the evening and when his son went to deliver food to him, he saw that the deceased was hanging from the fan in the hall. His son Ravi cut the rope and took down the deceased who was taken to hospital but was found brought death. Merg was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and in the merg enquiry, it was found that deceased has left suicide note wherein his wife Puspa her brothers Hemraj and Manoj and present applicant (who are not releated to the family) were harassing the deceased and had assaulted the deceased. Thus, a case of abetment of suicide was found by the police and FIR was registered under Section 306/34 of IPC on 11.04.2019.
3. Learned for the applicants while assaulting charge-sheet has argued that the necessary ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC are missing against the present applicants in the case. It is argued that even if it is deemed that the deceased had committed suicide, even then the charge-sheet in its entirety does not make out a case under Section 306/34 of IPC and the necessary ingredients to constitute the said offence are completely missing in the present case. It is argued that no material has been adduced to establish even prima facie the necessary ingredients of offence alleged against the present applicants and no abetment to commit suicide is prima facie made out from perusal of the charge-sheet and FIR.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported impugned charge-sheet and has argued that the merg intimation was registered without any delay and suicide note was recovered from the deceased. It is further pointed out by the State that as per the suicide note, it is alleged against the applicant No.1 that he is having extra marital relations with the wife of the deceased and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 3 they beat the deceased. It is further mentioned in the suicide note that his wife regularly commits mental cruelty upon him, hence, he is committing suicide. Thus, it is argued that the necessary ingredients of Section 107 are made out and thus, no case is made out for quashing charge-sheet under Section 306/34 of IPC.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the present case, the FIR alleges that after merg enquiry it has been found that the deceased was being harassed physically and mentally by his wife, his two brother-in-laws and by the present applicant i.e total 5 persons. The FIR mentions that in the morning of the same date, the deceased had lodged an FIR against the present applicants, who are father and son alleging that they have physically assaulted the deceased with stick. This FIR alleges an incident of 9:30 AM on 16.12.2018 while the deceased is said to have committed suicide at 8:00 PM on the same date.
7. The deceased is said to have children from his first marriage and the case diary statement of son of the deceased, who is complainant of the case mentions that in the morning of 16.12.2018, the present applicant had physically assaulted the deceased. He had further stated that the deceased had married with co-accused Puspa after death of his first wife and the said Puspa and her two brothers (who are not applicant in the present case) were harassing the deceased to transfer some property in the name of second wife Puspa.
8. The statements of his other son Pradeep are in the same lines. The statement of neighbour Bhagchand are also in the same terms and the statement of Sanjay, who is also neighbour are also in the same lines. The averments of FIR and case diary statements mentioned that the deceased was being continuously harassed by his second wife and her two brother to transfer some Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 4 property in the name of Puspa, who was that second wife.
9. The present applicants are not alleged to have been continuously harassing the deceased but there is allegation that there was single incident in the morning of 16.12.2018 when they had physically assaulted the deceased and for that incident the deceased had lodged an FIR in the morning of same date. The domestic discords between the husband and wife relating to property are not an isolated feature in Indian Society. Against the present applicant even this is not the allegation is that any time prior to the morning of date of the suicide, they had physically assaulted the deceased.
10. In the cases under Section 306, the Court has to see whether it is a case of victim committing suicide in response to disputes and differences in domestic life in the society which are quite common in the society to which the victim belongs and whether such circumstances were expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide. The response of each person to given set of circumstanced differs from person to person as per his psychological sensitivity and different people behave differently in the same situation.
11. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held has under:-
"13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 5 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.
14 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./6/2010 dated 8-
1-2010.] . The Court in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn.
15. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to- day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
16. 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.
17. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide".
12. The similar question cropped up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 and the Apex Court has held as under:-
"50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 6 intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for assessing the contents of the FIR. These provisions have been construed in the earlier judgments of this Court in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 107] , Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] ("Kishori Lal") and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat [Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62] . In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , Mukundakam Sharma, J., speaking for a two-
Judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed : (SCC p. 712, para 12) "12. ... 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 there 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."
51. The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they "must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide". Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] , "literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything". In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] , a two- Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dalveer Bhandari, J., observed : (SCC p. 197, para 25) "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."
52.Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] was specifically a case which arose in the context of a Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 7 petition under Section 482 CrPC where the High Court had dismissed [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 568] the petition for quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the appellant-accused. In the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court, delivered by V.S. Sirpurkar, J., the test laid down in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] was applied and the Court held : (Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC p. 631, paras 10-11) "10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this."
53. Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed :
(Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC pp. 631-32, para 12) "12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 8 to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note."
The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and "cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide". Reversing the judgment [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 568] of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
54. In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us (Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.) in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Common Cause [Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1] , the provisions of Section 107 were explained with the following observations : (SCC p. 244, para 458) "458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC."
55. More recently in M. Arjunan v. State [M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through R. Banumathi, J., elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following observations : (SCC p. 317, para 7) "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."
56. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dinesh Maheshwari, J., expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms :
(SCC pp. 321-22, para 16) "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 9 direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
57. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana [Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through L. Nageswara Rao, J., held as follows : (SCC para 9) "9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 10 the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 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. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
58. In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 417] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Hrishikesh Roy, J., held thus : (SCC pp. 206-07, para 15) "15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased."
59. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra [Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 781 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 362] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through U.U. Lalit, J., dealt with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. A person serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8- 8-2017. His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy work done from her husband. This resulted in him having to work from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and even at odd hours and on holidays. The specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed."
13. It is true that there might be cases where the victim was perpetually humiliated exploited and demoralized and compelled to indulge in wrongful practices which hurt his self-respect tremendously and there might be cases Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 11 where the accused had actively facilitated the commission of suicide by continuously harassing the victim and failing to rectify his conduct. Such cases have been taken by note by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 and in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat reported in (2019) 13 SCC 598.
14. In the present case as per the FIR as well as the case diary statements as appended to the charge-sheet the allegation against the present applicant is that on the date of incident they had assaulted the deceased. In the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased he alleged that the applicant No.1 is having some extra material relation with the wife of the deceased.
15. These facts do not fall within the meaning of abetment to commit suicide on part of the present applicant. There is nothing on record to show that the present applicants have either instigated the deceased to commit suicide or aided by any act or legal omission the commission of suicide by the deceased or had entered into any conspiracy for that purpose.
16. It is settled in law that in cases of alleged abatement of suicide, there must be indication of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The allegation of harassment of deceased would not suffice unless there be such action on part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. The instigation means to goad, urge, provoke,incite or encourage to do an act. If the person who committed suicide is hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstances to commit suicide, abetment may not be made out.
17. The present case when tested on the aforesaid anvil does not appear to be a case where charge-sheet against the present applicants can be sustained Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM 12 under Sections 306/34 of IPC.
18. Consequently, the present Mr.C.C is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet and proceedings consequential thereto are quashed only against the present applicants.
VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Prar Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/19/2024 12:48:03 PM