Akhtar Musalman & Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Inherent powers of the Court are invoked u/S 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 77/2017 registered at P.S. Piprai Distt. Ashoknagar

alleging offences punishable u/S 306 read with Sec 34 IPC.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

Facts in nutshell are that on 08.05.2017, complainant Jagram Singh informed the police that on 27.04.2017 accused petitioners who are 6 in number

had inflicted gunshot injury in the leg of the complainant's cow which led to the complainant filing a report, which in turn led to initiation of a

prosecution u/S 429 IPC, in which the petitioner no.1 Akhtar and other petitioners who are co-accused in the present offence were pressurizing the

deceased Ghanshaym (the uncle of the complainant) to enter into compromise. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased Ghanshyam was under great

mental stress on account of the pressure exerted by the petitioners upon the deceased to enter into a compromise, and as a result of which the

deceased, at 4:30 a.m. on 08.05.2017, committed suicide by hanging himself, at home.

Investigation was conducted and chargsheet was filed alleging aforesaid offence against the petitioners herein. The post-mortem report discloses no

external anti-mortem injury on the body except ligature mark and cause of death is opined as asphyxia due to hanging.

The statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses namely Suneel, Jagram, Kishore Singh, Nandlal, Devilal, Malkhan Singh and Harnam Singh were more or

less in same lines as the allegations made in the FIR.

The offence of section 306 IPC is directly relateable to the offence of abetment. If a person commits suicide and cause of death can be attributable to

another person with the aid of instigation doing or omitting to do something individually or in conspiracy with some other person or intentionally aiding

by illegal act or omission, then the person causing instigation, doing or omitting to do or aiding can be held responsible for abetment to suicide. The

Apex Court has succinctly explained the parameters of section 306 IPC in one of it's decision in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under

Section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out Section 306 of the 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

“Abetmentâ€​ 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.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance ona judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3)

SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled were as under:""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.

The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of

the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of

harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.

Learned counsel also placed reliance on anotherjudgment of thiscourt in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. Athree-Judge

bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered

you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like"". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court

in paragraph

20 has examined different shades of the meaning of ""instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:

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.

Moreso this court also by relying upon the above said Apex Court view has quashed the charge relating to an offence punishable u/S. 306 of IPC in

Cr.R. No. 310/15 vide order dated 18.04.16 and also in Cr.R. 306/2017 vide order dated 24.04.2018.

Apart from the allegations of threat and intimidation of dire consequences and the pressure exerted upon the deceased to enter into compromise, there

is no other allegation of any assault having taken place immediately prior to the incident and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the all

important live and proximate link between the cause and suicide appears to be either weak or missing altogether.

In the considered opinion of this court, this is a fit case where vague and unspecific allegations are alleged and therefore, in the interest of justice and

to save the rival parties from long drawn litigation and the public exchequer of avoidable expenses and to prevent failure of justice, this court for the

reasons aforesaid allows this present petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. and quashes the impugned FIR alongwith consequential prosecution registered against

all the six petitioners in Crime No. 77/2017 registered at Police Station Piprai Distt.

Ashoknagar.

No cost.