Hukum Singh Yadav and Another vs State of M.P.

Indrani Datta, J.

Applicants have preferred this revision u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Datia in S.T. No. 14/2006 by which charges have been framed against the applicants u/s 306 IPC.

Facts in brief are that on 07.06.2005 deceased and his father Jagdish were going to their farm. Applicants restrained them and abused deceased and his father and applicant Prakash also slapped the deceased and thereafter they threatened them to kill. Manku bai also reached there and asked applicants that why they are quarrelling with deceased and his father, then applicants then went away from the spot. Thereafter, the deceased and his father Jagdish went to their field and then Jagdish returned to his house. Meanwhile, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Deceased was admitted in Jhansi hospital where he breathed his last. After marg investigation, FIR is lodged and Crime No. 35/2005 is registered against the applicants. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the JMFC and case is committed to Sessions Court, Datia. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the applicants u/s 306 IPC, against which this revision has been .preferred.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that there is no material on record for making out a charge u/s 306 IPC. It is further submitted that no ingredients of offence under Section. 306 IPC are made out as there is no evidence or allegation that applicants in any manner abetted or incited the deceased to commit suicide, hence order of framing charges against them for offence u/s 306 IPC is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that as per suicidal note of deceased, applicants are liable for his commitment of suicide but even if that suicide note is entirely taken to be true even then on the basis of that applicants cannot be held guilty for instigating the deceased to commit suicide as neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted by the suicidal note or on perusing the material collected during investigation.

learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on Ramesh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 (5) MPHT 39 (NOC). In that case also, charges were framed against applicants/accused u/s 306 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCST Act and it was observed that there is no material on record to hold that applicants and co-accused instigated or abetted deceased to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC and revision was allowed. Further reliance is placed on Rajesh Shivhare v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 (4) MPHT 7 (NOC) in that case charges were framed by the trial court against accused u/s 306 IPC and impugned order of framing of charge was set aside on the ground that there is nothing to show that applicants had an intention that deceased should commit suicide.

Placing reliance on these citations, it is submitted that in this case also ingredients of instigation are lacking. No ground is made out for framing of charge u/s 306 IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that suicide is result of quarrel that had taken place between the deceased and applicants. Hence prima facie case is made out against the applicant u/s 306 IPC and no ground for setting aside the order of framing of charge is made out.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In order to prima facie consider the that whether applicants have abetted deceased for suicide, it is necessary to go-through Section 107 and 108 of IPC.

Section 107. A person, abets the doing of a thing, who-

(1) Instigates any person to do that thing, or

(2) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal commission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing ;or

(3) Intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Section 108. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act, which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

From perusal of Section 108 of IPC, it is clear that this section defines the word abettor. As per said section, a person abets an offence by commission of an act, which would be an offence, if committed by person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. From perusal of Section 108, IPC, it is clear that the abettor must have same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor in committing an offence.

Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or intention that deceased should commit surcide. There is no evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants threatened to kili deceased and his father Jagdish they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was compelled to do so.

In the case Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, there was quarrel between accused and deceased and accused told deceased to go and die then it is held that these words itself would not constitute the ingredients of instigation. Even if prosecution story is accepted to be true that applicants did tell deceased to go and die then also these words would not constitute ingredients of instigation. The word ''instigate'' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary, concomitant of instigation. It is a 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. The Hon''ble Apex Court considered various decisions and held that a charge of an offence u/s 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased particularly when ingredients of abetment are not attracted on the statement of deceased or witnesses.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of framing of charge against applicants for committing offence u/s 306 IPC cannot be sustained, therefore, charge framed against applicants u/s 306 IPC is set aside.

Accordingly, revision succeeds and is allowed.