Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand @ Kallu Bhatt vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110
1 CRR-4450-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4450 of 2024
ANAND @ KALLU BHATT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Pateria - Advocate with Shri Abhishek Pandey for the
applicant.
Ms. Preeti Singh - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the applicant challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.7.2024 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Damoh In S.T. No. 68 of 2024 whereby charge under Section 306 and in alternative Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the applicant and co-accused.
2. The present applicant and co-accused is being prosecuted for the offence alleged to have been committed by him and co-accused Arjun under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that as per the case of the prosecution, deceased Ashish Bhatt, who was working as a teacher in a Higher Secondary School Rajapatna committed suicide on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110 2 CRR-4450-2024 12.12.2023 by cutting his wrist nerves, leaving behind a suicide note in which allegations were levelled that the present applicant and co-accused tortured the deceased, as a result of which he committed suicide. The said allegations are supported by the statement of the wife of the deceased.
4. The counsel for the applicant contends that in the present case, the moot question which requires consideration is as regards implication under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in absence of any inducement or incitement. It is further contended that if the suicide note as well as statement of the wife of the deceased are taken into consideration on their face value, no case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. The deceased was having dispute pertaining to service condition at his work place, therefore, he committed suicide, yet the applicant is being sought to be made a scapegoat, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the applicant deserves to be discharged from the aforesaid charge. The counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhu Vs. The State rep by the Inspector of Police [SLP (Crl) Diary No. 39981/2022 decided on 30.1.2024]; Khairu Vs. State of M.P. and others - 2024 SCC Online MP 5271 and order dated 7.5.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 329 of 2022 (Anju Raidas & others Vs. State of M.P. and another).
5. The counsel for the State has opposed contentions raised by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110 3 CRR-4450-2024 applicant and submitted that there are direct allegations against the applicant of abetment. It is further evident from the statement of the wife of the deceased that the applicant and co-accused were threatening the deceased for last about 3-4 years and intending to take possession of the property, which belonged to the deceased. It is further contended that previously also the deceased had made a complaint on 19.11.2020 to Superintendent of Police, Damoh in which allegations were levelled against the applicant. Therefore, no interference is required in the present revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6 . No other point is pressed or argued by the counsel for the parties.
7. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
8. On perusal of record, it reflects that the wife of the deceased has given the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she has alleged that her husband/deceased was working as a Teacher and they were being threatened by the applicant and the co-accused and they were intending to dispossess the deceased and grab the property of the deceased. Even the deceased had expressed to his wife that he was under
constant coercion and pressure at the behest of the applicant in respect of a vacant plot, which was being sought to be encroached upon by the applicant. Apart from the statement of the wife of the deceased, there is a complaint also dated 19.11.2020, which was made by the deceased to the Superintendent of Police, Damoh, in which allegations were levelled Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110 4 CRR-4450-2024 against the applicant and it was expressed by the deceased that he was receiving threats at the behest of the applicant and co-accused and it was also expressed that he was feeling unsafe as he used to go to the school daily to perform his duties alone and behind his back, his wife and minor children remained in the house. Thus, there was threat to him as well as his entire family.
9 . In view of the aforesaid allegations, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case there is continued course of a particular conduct, which ultimately constrained the deceased to commit suicide as a last resort.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - 2001 (9) SCC 618 in Paragraph 20 & 21 has observed as under:-
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110 5 CRR-4450-2024 inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. 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 her life by committing suicide. 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 of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
11. Further, the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 while referring the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) has observed as under:-
35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110 6 CRR-4450-2024 367] to contend that the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the purposes of determining whether the offence under these provisions has been committed or not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No doubt that the word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] to say that where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide.
There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence. The husband of the deceased was a paralysed person. They were in financial crises. They had sold their property. They had great faith in the accused and were heavily relying on him as their property transactions were transacted through the accused itself. Grabbing of the property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement made by the son of the deceased as well as getting blank papers signed and not giving monies due to them Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50110 7 CRR-4450-2024 are the circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the deceased. The Court is not expected to form even a firm opinion at this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 of the Code.
12. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Ramesh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) and Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander (supra) and considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that as the deceased was being harassed since the year 2020, at this stage, it cannot be said the applicant is not guilty of inducement or incitement compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, no case for interference is made out in this revision.
1 3 . Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 10/4/2024 6:57:32 PM