Ajay Kumar Jain vs The State of M.P.

C.V. Sirpurkar, J.—This Criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant/accused Ajay Kumar Jain, is directed against order dated 20th February, 2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Beena, District-Sagar, in Session Trial No. 465/2014 (State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Shastri And Another), framing charge under section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC against applicant/accused Ajay Kumar Jain.

The case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court may briefly be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Jinesh Kumar Jain needed money for the treatment of some nodes in his stomach. On 8th April, 2013, deceased had taken a loan in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from accused Rajesh Kumar Jain (Shastri) after mortgaging his land by means of a registered mortgage deed. He had agreed to pay interest thereon at the rate of 2 per cent per month but he had returned the principal along with the interest totaling Rs. 1,24,000/- to the accused Rajesh Jain on 12th of April. However, accused Rajesh neither returned the mortgage deed nor got it cancelled before the Registrar. Son of accused Rajesh was class-mate of son of deceased Jinesh. Accused Rajesh obtained telephone number of Anjulata, wife of the deceased, through his son. Thereafter, wife of accused Rajesh started harassing wife of the deceased by calling her on her mobile phone. She alleged that the deceased had taken Rs. 7,50,000/- from her husband and they would charge interest at the rate of 4 per cent per month. She threatened to usurp their land by filing a case in the Court because her brother-in-law was an advocate. When the deceased protested in this regard with accused Rajesh, he told him that amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was entered in the mortgage deed for the legal purpose and when the amount borrowed by him would be returned, the deed would also be returned. Accused Rajesh asked the deceased to have faith in him because they were class-mates.

Likewise, deceased Jinesh had also taken a loan from applicant/accused Ajay Jain in the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- by pledging 13 tolas of gold ornaments worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. Deceased gave a cheque in the sum of Rs. 55,000/- to the accused/applicant Ajay Jain; however, since he could not deposit the amount in the bank, later he paid Rs. 40,000/- in cash to applicant Ajay Jain and asked for one month''s time to return remaining Rs. 15,000/- but applicant Ajay Jain replied that he has in his possession dishonoured cheque of Rs. 55,000/- issued by the deceased. He would return the cheque only if the deceased again gave Rs. 55,000/- to the applicant. When he protested, the applicant/accused started shouting. Later, the deceased learnt that applicant/accused Rajesh does not have any money lending license but indulges in that business and he has similarly cheated many other persons. In aforesaid circumstances, the deceased was constrained to commit suicide. Consequently, he committed suicide in the intervening night between 24th and 25th of April, 2014 by consuming poison.

Two suicide notes were seized from the person of the deceased, wherein he had blamed harassment by aforesaid two accused persons as cause of his suicide. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 read with Section 34 was filed against the applicant/accused and the co-accused. A charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 was framed as aforesaid against the applicant/accused Ajay Jain.

Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that even if all allegations made against the applicant/accused Ajay Jain are taken at their face value, his acts and conducts would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the deceased was cheated by the applicant as well as the co-accused for extorting exorbitant sums of money on accounts of loan taken by him; therefore, the deceased was under severe mental stress. Thus, he was left with no alternative but to commit suicide and learned trial Court committed no error in framing a charge under section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC against the applicant and the co-accused.

The court shall first consider whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the applicant Ajay Jain?

A perusal of the case diary reveals that the case of the prosecution is based upon two suicide notes seized from the person of the deceased as well as the statement under Section 161 given by his wife Anjulata Jain. During the course of the arguments, it has not been disputed that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. First of the two notes allegedly written by the deceased, states that he committing suicide because he had been deceived by some persons and his family members were not responsible for the same. The second suicide note allegedly written on 24.04.2014, is in two parts. In the first part, which is in greater detail, he has mentioned the name of co-accused Rajesh Shastri as the person who had cheated and harassed him. In the second part, he had blamed applicant Ajay Jain for his suicide. It has been stated in the second part of the suicide note that the deceased had pledged gold ornaments belonging to his wife valued at Rs. 2,00,000/- with the applicant/accused Ajay Jain and had taken a loan of Rs. 1,45,000/-. Thereafter, he had given a cheque in the sum of Rs. 55,000/- but since he could not deposit enough amount in the bank, he paid Rs. 45,000/- to the applicant Ajay Jain in cash and asked for 15 days'' time to pay remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/-; however, applicant threatened him that he had with him a cheque in the sum of Rs. 55,000/- signed by the deceased. Until he returned Rs. 55,000/-, the cheque would not be returned. It has further been recorded in the suicide note that the deceased kept paying interest every month. Later, he learnt that applicant Ajay Jain had deceived other persons in the similar manner. Whenever the deceased tried to speak to the applicant, he started shouting. The applicant does not have any money lending license. If his house and shop is searched, numerous blank cheques belonging to other persons, would be recovered. Deceased has further recorded in the suicide note that he is constrained to commit suicide due to harassment by the applicant and the co-accused Rajesh Jain. Neither his family members nor his friends are responsible for the same.

The Statements of Anjulata Jain, wife of the deceased, has mainly blamed Rajesh Jain and his wife Vinita Jain for the suicide and there is no mention of Ajay Jain in the statements under section 161 .

Now the question that arises for consideration is that whether the conduct of the applicant as brought-forth in the suicide note constitutes abetment of suicide?

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:

"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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, that:

"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

(Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, that:

"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.

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....."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, that:

"The present one is not a case 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 option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred."

Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, , it was observed that:

"The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life."

On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, observed as hereunder:

More so, in this case the accused has not 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 an instigation may have been inferred.

It is pertinent to note that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , with regard to suicide committed following attempts by the accused to recover his loan held as hereunder:

"The accused persons were charge-sheeted under section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal) death. However, it was found that none of the accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report. In that case, he could have moved higher officials. But, instead of taking this legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged commission of the was made out against the accused persons. The prosecution of the accused would be nothing but abuse of process of law. The charge-sheet filed against accused Quashed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code."

In the case at hand, it has been established prima facie that the deceased had taken a loan of Rs. 1,45,000/- from applicant Ajay Jain and by way of consideration had pledged his wife''s gold ornaments worth Rs. 2,00,000/- with the applicant. Subsequently, he had given a cheque of Rs. 55,000/- to the applicant; however, he could not deposit Rs. 55,000/- in the bank. Thereafter, he gave Rs. 40,000/- in cash to the applicant and asked for one month''s time to repay remaining Rs. 15,000/-; however, the applicant asked him to deposit entire amount of Rs. 55,000/- before the applicant would give the cheque signed by the deceased, back to him. On the basis of the material available on record, it is clear that the deceased had taken a loan not only from the applicant but also from the co-accused. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that dealings of the applicant with the deceased were not fair or that the applicant had deceived the deceased and was pressurizing him and extorting money from him on basis of the cheque signed by the deceased, it cannot be said that the applicant had actively aided or instigated commission of suicide by the deceased. In the situation, the deceased found himself in, he had several options before him. One of them was to face any legal action that could potentially have been instituted by the applicant; however, he felt defeated by the circumstances and chose to end his life.

In aforesaid circumstances, commission of suicide by the deceased was nothing but an exercise in escapism, for which the applicant cannot be held to be legally liable because it cannot be said that the applicant had created such a situation for the deceased, wherein he was left with no option but to commit suicide. The applicant had no reason to conceive the nexus between his demand for money from the deceased, which he had admittedly advanced and the result thereof, which eventually ensued.

Thus, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against applicant Ajay Jain under Section 306 of the IPC and the charge framed against him is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, he is entitled to be discharged in respect of aforesaid offence.

In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Applicant Ajay Jain is discharged in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 /34 of the IPC.