Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT:
JABALPUR.
S.B : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
M.CR.C.No.35331/2018
Ramesh Kumar Sahu
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & another.
Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.D. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri K.P. Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
(09.01.2020) Petitioner/accused has filed this Misc. Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First Information Report, in connection with Crime No.24/2018, for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity), registered at Police Station Atraila, District Rewa (MP), and all consequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid Crime No.24/2018, pending before Additional Sessions Judge Teothar, District Rewa (MP).
2: The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of deceased sonu @ Sombati Sahu was solemnized with petitioner/accused on 24.5.2008. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with four children. On 14.2.2018, deceased sustained burnt injuries and died. Merg was registered. It is found that petitioner/accused continuously tortured and humiliated her, so she committed suicide.
23: Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that petitioner/accused is a Security Guard. Petitioner/ accused is discharging his duties as Security Guard under the Company and staying at Mumbai. She was living with her children at Koni Pokhri. Deceased was living at her house, so she committed due to tension because petitioner/accused was living at Mumbai for his employment, therefore, no case is made out under Section 306 of Indian penal Code. After the death of deceased, Naksha Panchnama was prepared by the police. The independent witnesses were called. At that time, the father of deceased was also present, but no allegation about cruelty is alleged against him. After one month, the relatives of deceased made concocted story and alleged about cruelty and demand of dowry, so this is a case of purely false implication. Perusal of the statement of family members of the deceased would go to show that the allegations have been levelled respect of demand of money, therefore, she committed suicide. Thus, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out as against the petitioner/ accused. There is no instigation of committing the offence by the accused/petitioner. There is no material available on record on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner/accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. So, no offence has been committed by the accused/petitioner with respect to harassment of the deceased, because for last eight years, they have been living together peacefully and discharging their marital duties. The petitioner has never even subjected the deceased any cruelty or even in relation to demand of dowry. There is no complaint prior to the incident about the cruelty and demand of dowry against the 3 petitioner/accused. Petitioner/accused used to stay at Mumbai for the purpose of his employment. Deceased was residing with her four children at Koni Pokhri, so the reason appears to have been for such a drastic step by the deceased is the living of the petitioner/accused far away at Mumbai. Petitioner/accused used to come once in a year or during festival. The loneliness is the main cause of taking such extreme step by the deceased. Therefore, prosecution has failed to collect the evidence which may constitute commission of any offence against the petitioner/accused. There has not been any complaint with regard to any ill-treatment or harassment during the entire period of marriage between the petitioner/accused and deceased, so no case is made out under Section 306 of IPC. No mens ria can be inferred for the purpose of commission of offence by the petitioner/accused, so this is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings in the aforesaid Crime No.24/2018. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied upon the decisions in the case of the Apex Court in the cases of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and others [(2007) 11 SCC 205], State of M.P. Vs. Kusum [(2007) 10 SCC 799], Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731], Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and others [1995 Supp (3) SCC 732] and the decisions of this Court in the cases of Abhau Kumar Katare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No.5952/2018), Vinod Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. (Cr. Revision No.940/2014, decided on 14.1.2015), Kishorilal Vs. State of M.P. [(2007) 10 4 SCC 797], Aman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2005) 2 MPLJ 282], Munnalal Vs. State of M.P. [(1995) 2 MPWN 113], Bhagwan Das Vs. State of M.P. [(2010) 2 MPWN 110].
4: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the inherent powers of High Court, which reads as under :-
"Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
5: Before proceeding with this case any further, it would be appropriate to deal with Section 306 of IPC, which reads as under :-
"Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code. 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."
6: The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of M.Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 9.
"36. We would like to deal with the concept of 'abetment'. Section 306 of the Code deals with 'abetment of suicide' which reads as under:-
"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 5 which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
37. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and `cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self- killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of I.P.C.
39. Abetment of a thing' has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads 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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.'' Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
"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."
40. The Learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which a three-Judge Bench of this court had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever 6 you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.
41.This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar (2001) 9 SCC 618: 2002 SCC(Cri) 1088 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:(SCC p.
629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused- appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.
42.In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) SCC (Cri) 107, this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17), 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 difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to 7 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.
43. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605: (2010)3 SCC (Cri) 367, had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "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 others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases.
Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. 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.
45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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/she committed suicide."
7: The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of of Sanju Vs. State of M.P. Reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 also is as under:
"8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr . , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438: 1995 SCC (Cri) 943, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die' .8
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.
9. 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 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) "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."
10.This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 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 fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
(SCC p. 620) "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 9 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."
8 : The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of of S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in (1995) M.P.L.J. 458 held as under:-
"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.
26. 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.
27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside."10
9: The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of of S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in (1995) M.P.L.J. 458 held as under:-
"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.
26. 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.
27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside."
It is revealed from the record that after the death of deceased, enquiry was conducted. It is found that the deceased committed suicide, so FIR was lodged. The statement of witnesses, Ashok Kumar, Rambahore Kol, 11 Mahadev Kewat, Ramakant Sahu, Surendra Sahu, Lalman Sahu, Premlal Sahu, Dayanand Sahu and Munni Devi and other witnesses have been recorded. It appears from these statements that petitioner/accused continuously tortured and humiliated her. Due to this deceased committed suicide. The brother of petitioner/accused stated that petitioner/accused was living separately with her family, so the allegation of petitioner/accused that he was living at Mumbai for employment, will be proved by the evidence before the trial Court. Prima facie, allegation against the petitioner/accused is available that he was continuously tortured and humiliated her wife deceased Sonu @ Somwati. Therefore, the case of petitioner/ accused comes within the purview of abetment to commit suicide. All the allegations will be proved from the evidence during trial at appropriate stage. Thus, the evidence is required in this case. This court does not find it appropriate to exercise its inherent power in this case.
10 : Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be and is, hereby, dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2020.01.10 14:03:13 +05'30'