Ashish saxena vs State of M. P.

P.C. Agarwal, J.—Session Court has framed charge u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short). The petitioner has challenged such framing of charge.

As per prosecution on 30-1-1996 dead body of Anoop Saxena was found near Railway line. A suicidal note was also seen near the dead body which read as follows :

I Anoop Saxena like very much Kirti Saxena. First time this very girl had offered me but when I came to know that this girl is of another type who flirts with boys and then leave them, this is her habit, I had admonished her. However, this girl was hereditary type. She told her brother so many wrong talks against me. I had been compelled by my Senior Ashish Saxena to drink and smoke cigarette and to do wrong deeds and highly troubled me and harassed me whereby I plucked in first year. Even then he has harassed me. All the seniors of Vidisha have joined Ashish Saxena. Thereby troubled I am suiciding. In my house Ashish Saxena has earned such reputation and has earned their confidence that family members would not believe me

On comparison the suicidal note was found to be in handwriting of the deceased. Saraswati Prakash Saxena, the father, Manoj Saxena, the brother of the deceased had claimed that deceased had committed suicide as he was harassed by the petitioner who had compelled him to drink and to smoke cigarette. Kirti Saxena a young girl of age 17 has claimed that the deceased had endorsed his feelings in a greeting card for Deepawali which was destroyed by her. Hukum Chand Singh, Abhishek Nigam, Anand Jamulkar also claim that Ashish Saxena used to harass the deceased as he is the cousin of Kirti Saxena. Smt. Alka Saxena, mother of Kirti Saxena has claimed that deceased had apologized to her and the letter to Kirti Saxena was torn off.

Obviously, the deceased and the petitioner are not near relatives. It is not a case where any presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act could apply as it applied only in cases of suicide by the wife. Even if all the allegations of the prosecution are proved no case of abetment to suicide is made out. To prove abetment ingredients of section 107 of the Code need be proved. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, , Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157 and Swami Prahladdas vs. State of M.P., 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 have been relied upon. In the words of Supreme Court itself:

"Section 107, Indian Penal Code defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." Here in this case, deceased liked the cousin of the petitioner. He had written something on a greeting card which was not liked by the girl and her mother. However, the deceased apologized and the matter had subsided there. Anyhow, as per prosecution allegation, the petitioner used to tease or harass the deceased. As per suicidal note, the deceased was frustrated in his liking. He had plucked in first year and had adopted a bad company indulging in drinking and smoking. According to suicidal note, petitioner was held responsible for such bad company. However, there has been no allegation that the petitioner had ever instigated, engaged, intentionally committed or so conspired that the deceased could commit suicide. Of course, no suggestion to commit suicide was given by the petitioner as was the case in Swami Prahladdas vs. State of M. P. (supra). Obviously case of Mahendra Singh vs. State of M. P. (supra) was much stronger than the present one. That was a case of suicide by a wife being harassed by the behaviour of her husband. So was the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh (supra) where the wife had a quarrel with her husband and the husband in a fit of anger or emotion had suggested that the wife should die. May be, the behaviour of the petitioner could give cause or motive for committing suicide, yet, no abetment was prima facie established.

Suicidal note is written in disturbed state of mind. The young boy was frustrated in his liking. He had plucked in examination. He was penitent and not satisfied with himself and has indulged in self pity. In all these facts and circumstances of the case, no charge u/s 306 of the Code could be framed against the petitioner. The charge is quashed and the revision is allowed.

Revision allowed.