Annilal @ Anil vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed, to assail the order dated 22.12.2017, wherein charges have been

framed against the petitioners, for offence, under Section 306 of the IPC.

Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that, Ashish Chadhar was married to petitioner No.4 Puja on

06.02.2017. Petitioner No.1 Annilal alias Anil is the brother of Puja. Petitioner No.2 Nikram and petitioner No.3 Saraswati are the parents of Puja. It

is alleged that Puja often was talking on her cellphone, which Ashish did not relish. He opposed Puja. Because of which, tussle between the husband

and wife was going on. On 09.07.2017 at about 08:00 am., there was a dispute between the husband and wife. Mother of Ashish, Premrani tried to

resolve the dispute. Puja snapped not to involve in the dispute between husband and wife. Premrani then rang up to her husband Umashankar, father

of Ashish. He came to the house. Puja then closed the door of the room and was speaking on her cellphone. After some time, Puja opened the door

and was packing up her things in a suitcase. Umashankar tried to cool her down. At about 11:00 am., the petitioners Saraswati Bai, Nikram and

Annilal came to the house. After some time, there was hot exchange of dialogues. For about three hours, the petitioners threatened Ashish. They left

the home. at 04:00 pm. Ashish left by his motorcycle bearing No. MP-20-NB-9848. When Ashish was asked where he was going, Asish said to his

father that he is going up to Patan and will return soon. Till 08:00 pm., Ashish did not return. Therefore, he tried to call him, but his cellphone was not

responding. On the next day kotawar Harishanker informed Umashankar that his son Ashish has been cut to pieces in the railway track, near Sehoda

Railway Station. He went to the railway track and found the body of Ashish. There were several injuries found on the body. The dead body was

identified and after inquest, crime has been registered for offence under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Chargesheet has been filed. Learned Additional Sesion Judge Jabalpur framed charge for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the petitioners are innocent. The witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have narrated that they suspected

because of the harassment caused to him by the petitioners. Ashish Chaddha committed suicide. The petitioners have not abeted the commision of the

offence, therefore, the order impugned dated 22.12.2017 is liable to be set aside.

On behalf of the State, it is alleged that the petitioners are responsible for the death of Ashish because of the harassments and threats given to the

deceased, he committed suicide. Therefore, ofence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out.

Perused the record, The postmortem report reveals that causing of death is ante motem head injury. Certain items including purse, cellphone, ATM-

Card, etc and a suicide note have been seized from the site of incident. The suicide note was written on 09.07.2017 Sunday at about 07:30 in the day

time. The deceased wrote that he is committing suicide. The petitioners are responsible for his death. The petitioners coming to his house threatened

him, the person to whom he married threaten to go to her father’s house.

Statement of the father of the deceased indicates that there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. The dispute was with regard to the phone

calls by Puja to other persons, which the deceased did not like. On the date of incident also the petitioner Puja, her parents and brother had come to

the house of the deceased. They also threatened the deceased. Puja threatened that she will leave the house and was packing her things. All these

cumulatively promoted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the petitioners are responsible for the death of Ashish. The statements of Premrani

the Mother of the deceased, Dhashi Bai and Jor Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicates the same. All these if consider show that the

deceased was hypersensitive and might not have accustomed to the family discord and differences of everyday life. The deceased died due to the

family discord and has left the suicide note. As per the prosecution story, and statements of the parents of the deceased and other witnesses, if taken

entirely, as it is, it would be summed up that the deceased undoubtedly was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences of everyday

life. The alleged torture committed to the deceased cannot be amounted to abetment to commit suicide.

For the commission of the offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that necessary ingredients of Section 306 of IPC is made out. It is appropriate

to understand the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, which reads as under:-

“306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suidice shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.â€​

It is necessary to understand the term abetment. “Abetmentâ€​ has been defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:

“107. Abetment of 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 of illegal omission takes place in

pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing; or

Explanation 1: A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose. Voluntarily

causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

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.â€​

As per the definition given under Section 107 of IPC, the abetment is constituted by:

“(i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or

ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or

(iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

A person is said to ‘instigate’ another to act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by any means of language, direct or indirect,

whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward

or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.â€​

In the case of Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji Vs. State of M.P. reported as 1995 MPLJ 458, it has been held that Charge-sheet filed against accused

persons on the basis of suicide note left by deceased- No evidence to indicate that any of accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or

encouraged deceased to commit suicide â€" No case for alleged commission of offence made out against accused- Charge-sheet quashed.

Hon’ble the Apex Court has in a similar case analyzed the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Vs. State of

M.P. 2002 (5) SCC 371 held that -Abetment to commit suicide â€" Quarrel taking place between the appellant and deceased, in which the appellant

was said to have told the deceased to go and died. Deceased was found one to two days later held suicide was not proximate to the quarrel though the

deceased was named in the suicide note. Suicide was not the direct results of the quarrel when the appellant used abusive language and told the

deceased to “go and die.â€​

The suicide note if considered show that it was written at about 07:30 in the morning, whereas the statements, show that the quarrel took place about

8:00 am., in the morning. For three hours, the quarrel continued and at 04:00 clock, the deceased left his home by his motorcycle. At 8 pm, cellphone

of the deceased did not respond. In the next day morning, dead body of the deceased was found on the railway track. The suicide not wrote was

recovered from the purse of the deceased.

These facts cannot be ignored. The deceased, if aggrieved by the actions of the petitioners could have approached to the police, and had there been

any alleged torture and threatening by the petitioners, he could have went to the police to lodge report. He could have moved to the 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 tormentor. In similar case, Ram Naresh and another Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2002 (2) MPHT 183, the Apex Court has held that no case

for alleged commission of offence was made out against the accused persons.

Offence under Section 306 of the IPC, cannot be completed, unless the ingredients of Section 107 for abetment to commit suicide is established in

Babbi alias Jitendra and others Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2008(2) MPHT 160, High Court has held that “the word abetment is constituted by

instigating a person to commit an offence by engaging in conspiracy to commit it or intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The word instigate

means to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.â€​

Thus, had there been any domestic quarrel or a family discord and because of which the wife of the deceased wanted to leave the matrimonial home,

that cannot be termed as abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the important element of abetment to commit suicide is missing. Hence, the offence

under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out.

For the reasons mentioned above, and for the analysis of the legal aspects, there is no sufficient ground exists for proceeding with the trial for offence

under Section 306 of the IPC, against the petitioners. As such, the charge under Section 306 of the IPC framed against the petitioners is not

sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, this revision succeeds. The order dated 22.12.2017, passed by the Eighth Additional Session Judge,

Jabalpur, in ST No. 757/2017, is therefore set aside. The petitioners are discharged from offence under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the IPC.