Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Fajju @ Faijal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2018

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        CRR-69-2018
                 (FAJJU @ FAIJAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


  3
  Jabalpur, Dated : 13-04-2018
        Mr.C.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Mr.Pranay Choubey, learned Government Advocate for the
  respondent/State.

This petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the sh Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to assail the order dated e 14.11.2017, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai ad (Panna) has framed charge against the petitioner for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Pr Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts requisite for a hy disposal of this petition are that on the intervening night of 24.7.2017 at about 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. of 25.07.2017 the deceased-Prahlad Patel, ad aged about 35 years, resident of village Raikra, Police Station, M Simariya, District Panna hanged himself to death. On 25.7.2017, at about 6 a.m. the complainant-Mukesh Patel (maternal nephew) of the of deceased found him dead. It is alleged that the petitioner-Fajju @ rt Faijal had advanced Rs.5,000/- to the deceased. Earlier, on 23.7.2017 ou at about 9.30 a.m. the petitioner had threatened the deceased to refund Rs.2 lacs as principal and interest. One day before the date of incident, C allegedly, the petitioner had threatened the deceased to return this h money, failing which he would abducted and killed. Because of this ig harassment, the deceased allegedly committed suicide. H

3. On this report, Merg report was lodged. Subsequently, after enquest crime was registered for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Simariya against the petitioner. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On behalf of the petitioner the order framing charge has been challenged, in this revision, on the ground that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no suicide note. There is no abetment to commit suicide. It is also claimed that offence under section 306 of I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, requested to set aside the order impugned.

5. On behalf of the respondent/State the petition is vehemently opposed and it is contended that the deceased died due to harassment caused by the petitioner. The petitioner had advanced only Rs.5,000/- and was demanding Rs.2 lacs as interest. He has also threatened the deceased to abduct and to kill. Because of this, the deceased had no other alternative, except to commit suicide. Hence, sh framing of charge by the learned trial Court is correct and does not call e for any interference.

ad

6. Perused the police diary. The death of the deceased-Prahlad Pr Patel was caused due to cardio-respiratory failure due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is also seen that the suicide note is a available. However, it is short note, in which, the name of deceased hy has been written stating that he advanced Rs.5,000/- and demanding ad Rs.2 lacs. In the morning at about 4-5 a.m. he was threatened by the M petitioner/ accused. The statement of Mukesh Patel shows that the deceased was his uncle who had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from the of petitioner. On 23.7.2017 at about 9.30 a.m. the accused had gone to the house of the deceased and threatened him and demanded the rt advanced money with interest. He also threatened on 25.7.2017 to ou refund his money. He criminaly intimidated the deceased-Prahlad C Patel stating that if the amount is not paid, he will be abducted and h killed. Because of this, Prahlad Patel was tensed and committed ig suicide.

H

7. The provisions of Section 306 of IPC 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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

8. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitute abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC:

“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. Explanation 1: A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

9. In the case of Babbi @ Jitendera and others Vs. State of sh M.P., 2008 (2) MPHT 160 wherein it has been held that:-

e "(1) Penal Code 1860, Section 107- Abetment- is constituted by instigating a ad person to commit an offence- Engaging in conspiracy to commit it-Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

Pr Word and phrases- Word 'instigate'- Means to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act."

a hy

10. In the case of RadhesyamVs. State of M.P., 2014 (3) ad MPHT 103 it has been held that-

M "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397/401- Order of framing charge under Section 306 IPC- No evidence of abetment to commit suicide- Money borrowed to of the deceased and demanding back of money was not an act of harassment- Demand of loan amount is not an abetment under Section 107, IPC- Words uttered in heat of rt moment does not amount to abetment- Held- Order of framing charge is not sustainable ou and set aside."

11. In the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of M.P., 2007 C (II) MPWN 26 it has been held that merely demand of advanced h money or pressurizing the deceased by the accused for repayment does ig not itself constitute instigating for commission of the offence of H suicide.

12. In the case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P., 2009 (2) MPLJ 147 it has been held that the deceased committed suicide on account of playing dishonesty in a transaction of loan by the petitioner. The act, as alleged, against the petitioner does not amount to instigation nor constitutes aid in commission of the suicide by the deceased. Order framing of charge against the petitioner for offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside.

13. It is not a case where it can be said that the deceased had no other alternative except to commit suicide.

14. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:

"It appears to court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide. Conscience of court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty – Herein, deceased was undoubtedly sh hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day-to-

e day life – In facts and circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence ad under S. 306 made out – Hence, appellant's conviction, held, unsustainable."

15. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy (surpa) the Pr servant because of harassment by his employer committed suicide. It was alleged that the petitioner was accusing him of theft of gold a hy ornaments two days' prior to servant's death and also demanded Rs.7,000/- which were given to him as advance. The deceased not able ad to bear the harassment meted out to him, committed suicide.

M

16. In the present case the deceased allegedly committed suicide instead of lodging the report to the Police officials and instead of of taking legal and legitimate action he adopted an escapist course of rt committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged ou tormentor. No case for alleged commission of the offence was made out against the accused persons. C

17. However, before parting with the case it would be h appropriate to observe that if the deceased was threatened by the ig petitioner/accused, who had criminal background, it would be proper H to proceed against the petitioner for criminal intimidation or attempt to extortion and other offences, if any.

18. With the above observation, this petition is allowed. The charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code framed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed against the petitioner as per the directions above.

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by RAJESH T MAMTANI Date: 2018.04.17 13:30:06 +05'30' RM sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H