Bhagwan Singh Kushwah and Another vs State of M.P.

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—The petitioners herein/accused have filed this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 06/02/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 65/2013 whereby charge under Sections 306 in alternate 109 read with 306 of IPC has been framed against them. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 01/01/2012 Amaniya (since deceased) consumed some poisonous substance and, therefore, she was brought to the District Hospital, Shivpuri and on account of serious condition, she was referred to J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior where she was admitted at 8.30 pm, on the same day. During her treatment, she had died on 03/01/2012 at 3.45 am. The matter was informed to the police, on which Merg u/s 174 of the Code was registered. The Merg was inquired into. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioners who are husband and son of the deceased used to torture by suspecting her character and also did not provide food and other basic amenities to her, therefore, offence u/s 306 of IPC was registered against the petitioners/accused. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners herein/accused before the Committal Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the learned Trial Court for the trial.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Sections 306 in alternate 109 read with 306 of IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1, Bhagwan Singh Kushwah, 30 years prior to the alleged incident and two children born out of the wedlock and one of them is petitioner No. 2, Rai Singh Kushwah. It is further submitted that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance, therefore, initially she was brought to the District Hospital, Shivpuri and thereafter to J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior by the petitioners. On 01/01/2012 at 09.12 pm., the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the duty Doctor at Gwalior wherein she has not levelled any allegations against the present petitioners and stated that she ate GEHU KI GOLI (poisonous substance) which was kept in the house. After death of the deceased, her brothers and cousins developed a concocted story that the deceased had committed the suicide upon the instigation of the petitioners. It is further submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in toto even then, no case u/s 306 of IPC is made out as the necessary ingredients are totally missing. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petition may be allowed and the charge framed against the petitioners may be quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Madiya @ Mahadev Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (5) MPHT 248 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner/accused tried to outrage modesty of the deceased, therefore, she felt ashamed very much and after two days committed suicide, the Trial Court framed charge u/s 306 of IPC. This Court in such situation held that the petitioner/accused cannot be held guilt for commission of the offence u/s 306 of IPC as there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of the petitioner and the act of the deceased. Since, period of two days elapsed between the two incidents, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner/accused instigated the deceased to commit the suicide.

In response, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned order and submits that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance because the petitioners used to torture her by suspecting her character and failed to provide basic amenities to her, therefore, she committed the suicide.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

For framing charge u/s 306, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that there should be material to indicate that accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:-

Section 306:-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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetment has been defined in Sections 107 and 109 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under:

Section 107.-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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

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 facilitates the commission thereof is said to aid the doing of that act.

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment of abetment which reads as under:

Section 109 -Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

Section 306 of Indian Penal Code makes abetment of the commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide.

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 about 30 years prior to the date of the incident and two sons born out of the wedlock. The age of one son who is the petitioner No. 2, Rai Singh Kushwah is about 27 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners took the deceased for treatment initially to the District Hospital, Shivpuri and later on, to J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the duty Doctor at Gwalior on 01/01/2012 which reads as under:

From a perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased, it is clear that she has not levelled any allegations against the petitioners nor any other person.

Savaliya, Muhavaran, Tularam are the brothers of the deceased while Devi Singh, Chandan Singh, Kilon Singh and Udai Singh are the sons of the brothers of the deceased who stated in their statements that the petitioners used to commit marpeet with the deceased and torture by suspecting her character and also did not provide food and other necessary amenities to her, therefore, she committed suicide. On perusal of their statements, it is clear that their allegations are omnibus in nature and no specific date, time and incident has been pointed out. After death of the deceased, they for the first time are making such allegations against the petitioners/accused. During the subsistence of the marriage for about 30 years during the life time, the deceased never lodged any complaint against the petitioners.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), observed that the question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviors in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual''s suicide ability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual''s vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.

On due consideration of the facts of the present case, it becomes abundantly clear that there is no direct or indirect connection between the alleged act of the petitioners/accused and the act of the deceased for commission of the suicide. Even on accepting the prosecution evidence in its entirety and as a whole, prima facie, no ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 306 in alternate 109 read with 306 of IPC is made out, therefore, the learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing the charge against the petitioners.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court framing charge against the petitioners under Sections 306 in alternate 109 read with 306 is set aside and the said charge stands quashed. The petitioners are accordingly discharged from the offence.

With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.