Ghanshyam Koushik vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.97 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur, in ST. No. 472/1996 convicting the accused/appellant u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months. Facts of the case in brief are that on 23.10.94, at about 6 00 p.m., merg intimation Ex. P/1 was given by Net Ram informing that his niece Santoshi Bai committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil and setting herself ablaze. After merg inquiry, on 18.11.94, FIR Ex. P/9 was registered against the accused/appellant u/s 306 IPC.

Case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 19.10.94, when deceased Santoshi Bai was all alone in her house, after entering the house appellant hid himself and when the villagers searched the house of deceased, he was found in her house. It is further alleged that after two days of the incident, panchayat meeting was called in which accused/appellant was imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000. It is alleged that on account of the above incident, on 23.10.94, deceased committed suicide. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 26.12.94 u/s 306 IPC.

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C. in which he denied the charges alleged against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart two defence witnesses have also been examined.

After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant u/s 306 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

Contention of Ms. Meha Kumar, counsel for the appellant is that even if the entire case of prosecution is taken as it is, offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant because the ingredients of the said Section in particular Section 107 IPC are completely missing in the case. She submits that there is no evidence on record that deceased committed suicide simply because she was found in the company of accused/appellant inside her house on 19.10.94. She submits that convening a panchayat meeting can also be a cause for the deceased to commit suicide because on account of the said meeting she might have felt insulted and the news was also spread in the village. She further submits that had there been no panchayat, things could have been otherwise also. She further submits that the deceased appears to be a very sensitive girl where she took a drastic step of ending her life by committing suicide and on the basis of various judgments of the Apex Court, the said act of the accused/appellant cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 306 IPC.

On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Shri Shukla that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide and therefore offence u/s 306 IPC is apparently made out against the accused/appellant.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Netram (P.W.-1), cousin brother of deceased Santoshi Bai has stated that when he returned from his work place, he saw his sister lying on the floor in burnt condition and when he enquired from her she asked for water. He has stated that the deceased had not disclosed the reason as to why she set herself ablaze and soon thereafter she died. Mahettar (P.W.-2) is a witness of inquest notice Ex. P/2 and inquest Ex. P/3. He is also the witness of seizure memo Ex. P/4 by which certain articles from the house of deceased were seized. Shanti Bai (P.W.-3) mother of the deceased. has stated that at about 10.00 a.m. when she returned to her house and saw that the door was shut, she knocked the door and heard the noise of her daughter from inside who made request to open the door, thereafter with the help of some villagers when the door was opened she saw the deceased lying in burnt condition and she was asking for water. She has stated that the deceased did not inform her anything and after about half an hour of the incident, she died. In paragraph four while improving her statement she has stated that when the door of the house was opened, deceased informed her that she was feeling hot and let fresh air come inside. She has stated that thereafter, deceased informed her that after entering the house appellant hid himself she could not show her face to anyone therefore she does not want to live. At the later stage of her statement, this witness was declared hostile. In cross examination she has stated that she was informed by the villagers that in village panchayat, accused/appellant was imposed fine of Rs. 10,000 however she is not aware as to whether the said amount was deposited by the accused/appellant in the panchayat or not. She has also stated that she asked the deceased as to whether accused/appellant did any bad work with her but she did not said anything. In para 19 of her cross examination, she has stated that after opening the door along with other villagers she went inside, the deceased asked for water and thereafter she died but had not informed her anything. Domar Singh {P.W.-4} is a witness to the first incident dated 19.10.94 when it Is alleged that accused/appellant was found in the house of deceased and then panchayat was called. He has stated that accused/appellant was brought from the house of deceased and therefore father of accused/appellant Vishambhar had admitted the guilt of accused/ appellant and had made a request for amicable settlement of the dispute. He has stated that in the panchayat meeting, accused/appellant was imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and a request was sought by him for depositing the said amount. He has further stated that two days after the incident, deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. At this stage, this witness was also declared hostile. S.K. Dubey (P.W.-5) is the A.S.I., Who recorded the merg intimation Ex. P/1 and prepared inquest memo and inquest, spot map, sent the dead body for post mortem vide memo Ex. P/8 and also made some seizures. Dr. Babulal Mishra (P.W.-6) conducted the post mortem of the deceased and his report is Ex. P/9. The doctor has opined that cause of death was neurological shock due to 100% burn. R.K. Rai (P.W.-7) has done the investigation but challan was filed by his successor.

Amit Kumar (D.W.-1) has stated that in the village, panchayat meeting was convened and after the panchayat, mother of deceased Santoshi Bai came to him and informed that in the said meeting a fine of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed upon the accused/appellant however in the said meeting neither she nor her daughter was questioned as to whether any such incident had taken place. He has further stated that he was informed by mother of the deceased that it is the villagers who are saying that accused/appellant had entered her house whereas she is not aware about any such incident. He has further stated that he was informed by Shanti Bai that in the panchayat, her daughter was defamed as a result of which she was finding it difficult to live in the vicinity and that on account of the said panchayat she felt insulted. He has further stated that mother of the deceased had requested him to again call for a meeting and to stop the villagers saying anything against her daughter.

Manharan Lai (D.W.-2) has stated that after 3-4 days of the death of the deceased, panchayat meeting was convened in the village however he is not aware as to for what the accused/appellant was imposed with fine. He has stated that he was informed by mother of the deceased that in the said meeting false allegations were made against the deceased for having illicit relation with the accused/appellant and then deceased informed him that when no such incident had taken place then why a decision has been taken in the panchayat and on account of which she was feeling insulted.

As far as the allegation of abetment to commission of suicide is concerned, if it is seen in the light of abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC, nothing to be termed as instigation or abetment to do a particular thing is visible setting the provision of Section 107 in motion. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:

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.

Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC which reads as under:

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 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

In the case in hand, the allegation against accused/appellant is that on 19.10.94, when the prosecutrix was all alone in her house, after entering the house, appellant hid himself. It is further alleged that when the house was searched, accused/appellant was found inside. The act of the accused/ appellant entering the house of deceased, under no circumstance, can be termed as abetment. Of course, the deceased may have felt bad or insulted when the accused/appellant was found in her house, but that itself would not constitute abetment on the part of accused/appellant.

Furthermore, as per the facts, the panchayat meeting was called in which accused/appellant was imposed fine. Thus, It cannot be said with certainty as to whether after entering the house of the deceased by the accused/ appellant, or holding of panchayat caused mental disturbance to her.

The dictionary meaning of "Instigation" or "goading" means there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person''s suicidability pattern is different from others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula In dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person u/s 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea 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 she committed suicide. It appears that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide.

True it is that the act of accused/appellant entering the house of deceased cannot be justified in any manner but the same cannot be brought within the definition of abetment and to constitute the offence u/s 306 IPC.

Keeping in view the allegations made against the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of ''abetment'' are totally absent in the instant case. An offence u/s 306 IPC would stand only if there is an ''abetment'' for the commission of the crime. Accordingly, in the present case, offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.