Allahabad High Court
Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 November, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 27.05.2022 Delivered on 19.11.2022 In Chamber Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24025 of 2021 Applicant :- Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Vajpeyi,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, DAA, Mahoba in Session Case No.291 of 2021, State versus Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav and other, (Case Crime No.65 of 2021), under Section 306, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba), District Mahoba whereby learned trial Court dismissed the discharge application moved by applicant under Section 227 for discharging him in the alleged sections and charge has been directed to be framed under Sections 306, 504 and 506 against the applicant and other co-accused.
3. Main Prayer in the application is as under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and set aside the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, D.D.A., Mahoba in Sessions Case No.291 of 2021, (State Vs. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.65 of 2021, under Sections 306, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District Mahoba whereby the learned Court below has rejected the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of applicant."
4. Impugned order has been assailed by the accused-applicant mainly on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. He has no concerned with the present crime. He has committed no offence. Prosecution story is false and fake. He neither tortured the victim/deceased nor demanded/took any money. He never instigated the victim to commit suicide. There is no role of the present applicant in committing suicide of the victim. Accused-applicant has no concerned at all with the present case. Learned Counsel contends that no offence, as alleged, is made out. He showed some papers as well as statements in support of his contention and relied upon the judgments as under :-
i. Jalil Khan and others versus State of M.P., (2021 Law Suit (MP) 2021).
ii. M. Mohan versus State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 626.
iii. Gurcharan Singh versus State of Punjab, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 433.
iv. M. Arjunan versus State Represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315.
5. From the side of opposite parties, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been opposed by alleging that accused-applicant is man of criminal antecedents, number of criminal cases have been registered against him. He operates a gang of criminals. Prior to the present incident, accused-applicant has demanded/ took some money from the son of victim/deceased who lodged an FIR against the applicant and some other persons under Section 386 IPC in police station concerned. When the police took no action, victim/deceased has decided to end his life and committed suicide by way of shooting himself with his licency rifle, which is alleged to be used in incident, was found on spot and suicide note allegedly written by victim himself was also recovered by the police from the spot. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer has collected credible evidence like suicide note, previous FIR and CCTV clip and statements of witnesses who have verified the prosecution versions. The Investigating Officer has rightly submitted charge sheet against the applicant and other accused persons and no illegality in the same. It was further alleged that accused-applicant is habitual offender having long criminal history of heinous crime like murder, dacoity, extortion etc. in order to take goonda tax. He started threatening to the brother of opposite party no.2 and took huge amount from him, when the victim/deceased came to know the fact of goonda tax taken by the accused-applicant, objected the same and lodged an FIR under Section 386 IPC bearing case Crime No.52 of 2021 but the local police did not take any action against such applicant, due to which victim/deceased reached the position to commit suicide. Investigating Officer rightly filed charge sheet under the alleged section. So far as the criminal history against the victim/deceased is concerned, he was implicated by local enemies and victim was acquitted by the Court. There was sufficient ground to frame the charge against the accused-applicant. Trial Court rightly passed the order of framing charge which has no illegality or irregularity.
6. In response to the ground taken by the opposite parties, from the side of accused-applicant, it has been stated that statement of informant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and Investigating Officer without conducting fair and impartial investigation and collecting credible evidence, submitted charge sheet in the matter and trial Court illegally rejected the discharge application. There was nothing on record to frame the charge against the applicant and in all the cases previously registered against the applicant, either the applicant has been acquitted by the Court or the cases have been withdrawn by the State Government or accused-applicant on bail. All the cases registered against him are totally false due to political rivalry as he is in active politics. Photo copy of counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are on record.
7. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:-
Informant moved an application before In-charge Officer police station concerned alleging that his father Mukesh Kumar Pathak has committed suicide by shooting himself with his licency rifle on 13.02.2021 at about 10:45 PM in the night due to threatening of accused-applicant Chhatrapal Yadav and his other companion Ravi and others. It is also stated in written tehreer that on 13.02.2021 at about 05:00 PM in RRC Hotel situated at Gandhi Nagar, victim / deceased and complainant were called, where accused-applicant threatened him to see in the future. After the death of his father, Additional SP recovered a suicide note written by victim himself which was taken by police. Dying declaration itself reveals that in FIR dated 07.02.2021 against accused-applicant and his other companion, namely, Vikram, Anand Mohan, Ravi, Manish, Ankit and Abhay Pratap, no action was taken by the police, resultantly due to indifference and negligence of police officer, threat of killing and false implication in criminal case, victim/deceased committed suicide. On the basis of this written tehreer submitted by informant, an FIR bearing case crime no.65 of 2021 has been registered against the applicant and six others under Section 306 IPC in Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba. Matter was investigated by police who submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and other persons in the alleged section.
8. Suicide note, as alleged to be written by deceased, on English translation would read as under:-
"I, Mukesh Kumar Pathak, Chattrapal Chaudhary and his other companion Ravi, Vikram, Manish Chaubey, Anand Mohan Yadav took about Rs.60,00000/- (sixty lacs) from my son and assaulted him. On being complaint made by me, I was being continuously threatened to implicate under Section 376 IPC by them. Mahoba police, SP, CO colluded him. He was being threatened of life. He is committing suicide out of compulsion, responsibility thereof would be on Chattrapal and others. My children, wife to forgive me, I am leaving you in the middle. Salute to my both elder brothers and good bye to younger Ramesh.
Sd/-
Dt:13.02.2021 Time: 08:00 PM"
9. FIR Crime No.65 of 2021 of the present case, lodged by informant Rahul Pathak depicts that on 13.02.2021 at about 10:45 PM in the night, his father Mukesh Kumar Pathak committed suicide by shooting himself with his licency rifle due to threat and terror of applicant and his companion. It further speaks that on the same day in the evening at 05:00 PM, he (informant) and his father (deceased) were called in RRC Hotel situated at Gandhi Nagar, Mahoba where accused Chattrapal and his other companion threatened to see in future. After the death of his father Additional SP got a suicide note written by his father to which police took with him and photostat copy whereof is annexed with the tehreer. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that dying declaration of deceased clarifies that due inaction of police officers in respect of FIR dated 07.02.2021 against the accused persons and threat of killing and false implication in criminal cases by accused person, his father committed suicide. From the perusal of FIR itself reveals that Additional SP along-with other police officers reached on spot before registration of the case and got alleged suicide note. It is not clear from the record how the police officer got information of the incident and how they reached on spot. On one place informant Rahul Pathak stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that original copy of suicide note has got received to investigator at the time of statement, thus recovery of suicide note, as alleged to be written by deceased, himself is surrounded by high suspicion and according to suicide note itself, if there is any reason of suicide, it may be the negligence of Police Officer who have been given a clean chit in investigation.
10. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There has to be a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. If there is no positive act on behalf of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, offence under Section 306 cannot be said to be made out. In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. There should be an active act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide. The overt act must be such a nature that the deceased must find himself having no option but to an end to his life. That act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he commit suicide. In the suicide-note, only allegation is that deceased was threatened to see in future and he was being harassed by the applicant to which deceased could have complained to the authority concerned but it was not a ground to commit suicide. Without there being any intention to push the deceased to commit suicide, the offence under Section 306 IPC against the applicant cannot be said to be attracted. On a plain reading of the suicide-note itself reflects that there was no abetment on the part of the applicants for committing suicide by the deceased.
11. In State of Kerala and others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others, (2015) 9 SCC 639, observed as under:-
13. In Netai Dutta [(2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 IPC and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to say this: (SCC p. 661, paras 6-7) "6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal."
14. In M. Mohan [(2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , while dealing with abetment, the Court has observed thus: (SCC p. 638, paras 44-45) "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."
15. As far as Praveen Pradhan [(2012) 9 SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146] , is concerned, Mr Rao, has emphatically relied on it for the purpose that the Court had declined to quash the FIR as there was a suicide note. Mr Rao has drawn our attention to para 10 of the judgment, wherein the suicide note has been reproduced. The Court in the said case has referred to certain authorities with regard to Section 107 IPC and opined as under: (SCC p. 741, paras 18-19) "18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 CrPC.
19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon non-fulfilment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, ''had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide' is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned judgment and order of the High Court."
12. The Supreme Court in (2019) 17 SCC 301 (Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana), extensively surveyed essentials of offence of abetment of suicide, as defined under Section 306 IPC, and summarized the principles. It has been held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be cogent and convincing proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by any person would not be sufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide unless there is such action on the part of accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. It is also relevant that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It has been further held that psyche, sensitivity / hypersensitivity of victim are relevant and material considerations. Each case is required to be examined on its own facts and taking note of all the surrounding factors, having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. The Court in para-16 of Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana's case (supra) has explained the essentials of abetment of suicide which read as under:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of 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 above referred, 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 the 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.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances."
13. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, the Supreme Court has held that a person, who is said to have abetted commission of suicide, must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. Paras 50 and 51 of the said judgment read 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 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."
14. Learned AGA for the State has, placing reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 (Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another) submitted that offence of abetment by instigation depends upon intention of the person who abets and it is not dependent upon act which is done by the person who has abetted. Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case and in the present case from the circumstances it is clear that the deceased was harassed in the hands of the applicant and, therefore, deceased committed suicide. AGA further submitted that impugned order of framing charge does not suffer from illegality and not to be quashed. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein it is observed that the Court is required to consider record of the case and documents submitted therewith to find out whether strong suspicion for commission of offence by the accused would arise and proof him guilty.
15. It is evident from the record that learned trial judge framed the charges against the petitioners-accused under Section 306 of IPC, so it must be seen that what is the evidence against the petitioners-accused. Before entering into merits of the matter, I would prefer read the relevant Sections under the Code regarding framing of charges. Section 227 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:
"227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing"
Section 228 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also reads as under:
"228. Framing of charge.(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 has held as under:-
"7. Again in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., [1979] 4 SCC 274 this Court observed in paragraph 18 of the Judgment as under: "The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion rounded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence".
From the above discussion it seems well-settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face-value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366 has held as under:-
"Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
18. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) SCC (Cri) 107, 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 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.
19. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605: (2010)3 SCC (Cri) 367, Court 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.
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 Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing with the similar issue in the case of Sanju Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 observed 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' . 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 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."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. State of Harayana in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2019 on 18th January, 2019 has held as under:-
"9. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has been explained in State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi2) as follows:
"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do (2010) 1 SCC 707 (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367 "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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.)."
23. From the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that the deceased perceived harassment by the applicant as he was threatened to see in future or false implication under Section 376 IPC. There is nothing on record to suggest any mens-rea for instigating or abetting the suicide by the applicant. The suicide-note, as has been extracted herein above, even does not remotely suggest that the accused-applicant had any intention to aid, instigate or abate the deceased to commit suicide. Making threat to the deceased, asking him to see in future or implication in criminal case of IPC by itself would not constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide. There is no evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to suggest that the applicant intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. This Court is of the view that all ingredients of instigation of abetment to commit suicide are completely absent in the material collected during the course of investigation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused-applicant has committed any offence under Section 306 IPC. There is no offending action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the applicant, which would have led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Perceived of harassment by the deceased in the hands of the accused-applicant cannot be a ground for invoking the offence under Section 306 IPC as it cannot be said that the accused-applicant has abetted the commission of suicide by playing any active role or by an act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. While framing the charge, Trial Court has not appreciated the judgment cited in the body of impugned order in right perspective and it misinterpreted the judgment.
24. In the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, allegation made against the applicant, evidence collected by prosecution and the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the application is liable to be allowed. Impugned order dated 08.10.2021, and the further proceedings thereof against the applicant are quashed. Applicant is discharged from the offence alleged.
25. Application stands disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.11.2022 I.A.Siddiqui