Dipti Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC on 5.10.2018 on behalf of petitioner Dipti Rathore for quashment of the FIR dated 22.5.2018 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Sehore bearing Crime No.386/2018.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was married with Deepak Rathore (son of the deceased) on 6.5.2017. On 23.4.2018 father-in-law of the petitioner named Mahesh Rathore committed suicide by jumping into well. Police District Sehore registered Merg No.28/2018. After inquiry into Merg, First Information report No.386/2018 under section 306 of IPC was registered on 22.5.2018. After investigation, Police filed challan before the competent court. It is also an admitted position that the charge under section 306 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner by the trial court.

It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is motivated and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence with an intention to harass the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner, as contained in the prosecution story, do not make out an offence under section 306 of IPC. None of the ingredients of section 107 of IPC are fulfilled in the instant case. It is the settled position of law that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, prosecution under section 306 cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under section 306 of 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/she committed suicide. The fact of the instant case nowhere shows that there was any active or direct act on the part of petitioner, which could have led the deceased to commit suicide. No offence under section 306 of IPC is made out. Therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

On the other side, State strongly opposed the petition. It is submitted by the State that sufficient evidence has been collected by the prosecution to prove the offence under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner continuously harassed her father-in-law. Due to this harassment and the cruel behaviour there was no any option left before the deceased except to commit suicide. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of section 306 of IPC, it is important to carefully examine the basic ingredients of section 306 of IPC. The said section is reproduced as under:-

"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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours 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 suicidability 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. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the I.P.C., however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing' thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306, IPC, the prosecution has to establish:

(i) that a person committed suicide, and

(ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused.

In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an "abetment" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows :

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

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Sec. 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act".

As per the Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing 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. Explanation to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

Reading of sections 306 and 107 together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under S. 306 of the I.P.C. for abetting the commission of suicide. A plane reading of this provision shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must be established that such other person committed suicide.

As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh[(2001) 9 SCC 618 : (2001 AIR SCW 4282)]. It has been said that 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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), = AIR 2010 SC 1446 = 2010 AIR SCW 645 = (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 'instigation' and 'goading'. The Court said :-

"Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action : provoke to action or reaction" (See : Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See : Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter."

The Apex Court in this aforesaid case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra) reiterated the legal position laid down in its earlier three Judges Bench judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3837 : 2001 Cri LJ 4724 (1) and held that where the accused by his acts or continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may be inferred. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case of Chitresh Kumar, (AIR 2010 SC 1446) (supra), summed up the legal position as under :-

"In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and,

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."

The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

In the Case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar and another, [2010] 12 SCC 190 the Supreme court said that :-

"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 Sec. 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life."

In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 = 1994 AIR SCW 844 = 1994 Cri LJ 2104, the Supreme Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

In the case of Mohd. Hoshan and another v. State of A.P., AIR 2002 S.C. 3270 = 2002 AIR SCW 3795, Hon'ble Supreme court observed that whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not. In this case out of 11 months of married life, the deceased was forced to live in her parents' house and could live with her husband for a period of two months in different spells. The Court also took note of the fact that the accused did not try to save the deceased although he was present when burn injuries were caused to her therefore accused is liable to be convicted for offences under section 306 and 498-A I.P.C.

In Randhir Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 S.C. 5097 = 2004 AIR SCW 5832, The Supreme court said that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Sec. 306 of IPC.

It appears from the case diary that the first information report was registered after an inquiry into Merg No.28/2018. It is stated in the FIR that during merg inquiry, statements of Chetan Rathore, Deepak Rathore, Susmina Rathore, Neetesh Rathore, Mahesh Lodhi and Bharat Singh Lodhi were recorded. Upon the basis of aforesaid statements, the police came to the conclusion that the suicide of deceased Mahesh was the result of abatement by petitioner. Copies of all statements have been submitted along with the challan. If we see the entire statements recorded then the following circumstances/facts came into light :-

a. Deepak Rathore was married with the petitioner on 6.5.2017 at Sehore. The petitioner was the resident of Kila Gate, Ghas Mandi, Gwalior. Both were residing at Sehore.

b. After about 1 ½ months the husband Deepak Rathore came to know that his wife/petitioner is having love affair with another boy from whom she is talking on mobile for a long time.

c. Some dispute arises in the family upon the aforesaid incident of love affair. The family members tried to stop her but the petitioner did not stop talking with that boy. After marriage father and mother of the petitioner never visited the house of their daughter/petitioner.

d. Husband of the petitioner gave a smart phone to the petitioner after keeping its call recorder on.

e. When the husband and his family members tried to convince the petitioner that her relationship is not good then she started quarrel with the family members and gave the threat to involve them in false cases.

f. Upon the aforesaid threat, the deceased came into tension. He also said his daughter Ragini and his son-in-law Yogendra Singh that he committed mistake by performing the marriage of his son Deepak Rathore with the petitioner.

g. In December, 2017 the petitioner left the house with her luggage without informing anybody.

h. The family received the information after 2 days that the petitioner is in Delhi. Then they informed her mother and father but they told that they are not responsible because they had performed the marriage of their daughter in their family, therefore, they (complainants) are liable to keep the petitioner safe.

i. The deceased and other family members told the family members of petitioner that the petitioner is in Delhi, therefore, they could took her back from Delhi to Gwalior. Thereafter, the family members of petitioner took the petitioner and left her in the house of deceased. On 26.1.2018 the father of petitioner came to the house of husband with the petitioner but the deceased denied to give the shelter and said the father of petitioner that there is a marriage in the house, therefore, he will talk to him after the marriage, so he go back with the petitioner.

j. Thereafter, the younger brother Chetan had gone to see off the petitioner and her father but after some time he came back and said that the petitioner is missing from the station and her mobile is also switch off. After sometime, the petitioner came back to her house and admitted her mistake and said that she will not talk to anybody in future.

k. The petitioner was used to give threat for false implication in the case. She was also used to give false information to his mother and father. Without any decease she admitted in sehore hospital and informed her parents.

l. On 19.4.2019 the deceased informed daughter Ragini on telephone that her daughter-in-law/petitioner is harassing him. He also said to his daughter that the petitioner gave the false information to her parents that we are beating her and not giving the food articles, therefore, she has fallen ill.

m. On 22.4.2018 at about 8:30 in the evening the deceased asked the petitioner why she had given the false information to her parents while they are keeping her well. But the petitioner started quarrelling with them and again gave a threat to implicate in false case.

n. The husband of petitioner informed the parents of petitioner but they said that they will come on 28.4.2018.

o. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into well.

Therefore, looking to the aforesaid entire evidence, it appears that the main ingredients of section 107 of IPC are missing. It is also submitted by the counsel for State that due to cruel behaviour of the petitioner and due to the insult of deceased by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. In the light of the facts of this case, aforesaid arguments cannot be accepted. It will be useful to refer some other case laws in this regard.

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 = AIR 2001 S.C. 3837 = 2001 AIR SCW 4282, (Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court) a dispute was 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 para 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of 'instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:

"20. 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."

In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 AIR SCW 4570 = 1996(1) MPJR 192 = 1996 Cri.L.R. 15 = 1996 Cri.L.J. 894, the allegations leveled were as under:

"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."

Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the definition of 'abetment' under Sec. 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Sec. 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. The Court further held that ingredients of abatement are not attracted on the statement of the deceased. The court said that the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.

In Swamy Parahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 1995 Supp. (3) S.C.C. 438, the accused was charged for an offence under Sec. 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the accused, during the quarrel, is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. The Court said that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar, v. State of M.P." AIR 2002 S.C. 1998 = 2002 AIR SCW 2035 the accused asked to the deceased 'to go and die'. The supreme court said that these words itself, without requisite mens-rea, does not constitute instigation. The court said :-

"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate of incite. Presence of mens-rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens-rea."

If the behaviour of petitioner was not proper, then legal remedy was available with the complainant party. The case was travelled upto Parivar Paramarsh Kendra but in the absence of non applicant, the case was closed. The husband was free to obtain the divorce from the petitioner upon the ground of cruel behaviour

In Radha Vs. State of M.P., ILR (2008) M.P. 3333, it has been held that Cruel or insulting behaviour cannot be taken as an act of abetting suicide, more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding doing of a thing is thus required before a person can be said to be abetting suicide.

After taken into consideration Pancharam Vs. State. 1984 (2) Crimes 787 and Brijlal Vs. State 1971 JLJ Short Note No. 80 it has been said by the High Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of M.P. , 1997 MPLJ (2) S.N. 11 that refusal of permission of husband to wife to go to parents house would not be a penal offence and conviction under Sec. 306 of the I.P.C. on such count is not suspensible

In Bhoj Ram Vs. State of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ (SN) 23 suicide was committed by the deceased after beating by the accused. The lower court was of the view that because of the beating by the accused the deceased probably felt bad therefore he must have committed suicide. In the above circumstances the court said that in absence of the positive evidence that either of the accused instigated some person to do a particular thing or engaged himself or some one for commission of the offence or for illegal omission or intentionally aided in commission of the act by their own acts or illegal omissions it would not be entitled to secure a conviction of the accused persons. The Court observed:-

"Sec. 109 of I.P.C. provides punishment of abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no expression provision is made for his punishment. As Sec. 306 makes special and express provisions for punishment, the provision of Sec. 109 would not be applicable. For providing abetment a Court is obliged to see not only the evidence brought on record but also the definition which defines abetment. The prosecution unless proves application of either of the clauses provided under Sec. 107, IPC would not be successful in securing the conviction of the accused. The prosecution had miserably failed in showing the application of any of the clause provided in Sec. 107, IPC. ..................; The criminal jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved the person facing the trial would be deemed to be an innocent. The burden to prove the ingredients constituting the offence is on the prosecution and not on the accused. If the prosecution fails to connect the act of the accused with the ultimate crime and material links which constitute the chain are missing the accused would be entitled to an acquittal."

In the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 S.C. 2790 = 2004 (16) AIC (SC), the wife of the appellant committed suicide on account of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the appellant therein. Considering the earlier judgments in the cases of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another [(1994) 1 SCC 73], the Court held that the allegation that the appellant did not like to keep the deceased with him because she was not good looking, or that he was addicted to liquor or that the deceased had reported these matters to her parents and others, or that the appellant intended to remarry and had told his wife about it, or that the deceased had once come to her father's house in an injured condition, or even the allegations regarding beatings, do not find place in the statements recorded by the police in the course of investigation and under the aforesaid circumstances the Court has found that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec. 306, IPC and set aside the conviction.

In the facts of this case, it would be clear that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing on record to show that anything was done by the petitioner from which an inference can be drawn that she abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

It cannot be presumed that the petitioner created the circumstances in which no option was left with the deceased except to commit the suicide. It can be said that the victim was hyper sensitive, therefore, he committed suicide. The extra marital relationship of the daughter-in-law, threat given by her to implicate in false case and or the abnormal behaviour of the daughter-in-law are not sufficient to constitute the offence under section 306 of IPC. The behaviour of the petitioner may be a cause behind the suicide but the abatement by the petitioner cannot be presumed, therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Therefore, the petition stands allowed. FIR No.386/2018 registered at Police Station Sehore and all subsequent proceedings based upon the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed.