Jagdish Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ''the Code'') praying for

quashment of proceedings in S.T.No.296/16 pending before

the Court of 2

nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur Distt. -

Shajapur against the petitioner with regard to offence under

Section 306 of IPC.

Relevant facts, briefly stated, are that on 27/10/14 dead

body of an unidentified male, aged about 30 years was found

lying on the railway track near Nemaz river bridge, having

the head separate from the trunk. On information being

received from railway station Shujalpur Mandi, in this

regard, Merg No.71/14 under Section 174 of ''the Code'' was

registered at Police Station Shujalpur. On the basis of the

belongings, the dead body was identified that of Narendra

Singh, aged about - 30 years, S/o Bane Singh, resident of

village-Chittodi. In post-mortem, it was revealed that

Narendra Singh died because of injury on the neck. On

further enquiry, a suicide-note said to have been left by the

deceased was found. During enquiry, it was further revealed

that the petitioner, at the instance of Narendra Singh

(deceased) has extended loan to one Rajendra Singh, r/o

Village-Babalda. As Rajendra Singh was reluctant to repay

the loan amount, therefore, the petitioner, was pressurising

the deceased and was subjecting him to harassment. It is

further alleged that the deceased and his father Banesingh

were threatened by the petitioner who also misbehaved with

them, therefore, Narendra Singh committed suicide by

jumping before the railway track.

On the basis of merg enquiry, First Information Report

bearing Crime No.590/14 for offence under Section 306 of

IPC came to be registered at Police Station Shujalpur against

the petitioner. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed against him. In due course, the case was committed to

the Court of Sessions giving rise to S.T. No.296/2016.

Quashment of proceeding in S.T. No.296/2016 is

prayed on the ground that petitioner at no point of time

either directly or indirectly has instigated, goaded, provoked,

incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. It is

further submitted that except for bald allegations made by

Bane Singh-the father of the deceased, about harassment,

there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner

caused harassment to the deceased with regard to non-refund

of loan by Rajendra Singh. It is contended that recovery of

alleged suicide-note is very doubtful and that even if the

contents of suicide-note are accepted to be correct, prima- facie a case for abetment to commit suicide is not made out.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

that from the suicide-note, which has been found to be in the

handwriting of the deceased, it clearly transpires that he was

being harassed by the petitioner, therefore, it can be inferred

that the deceased was abated to commit suicide.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

''Abetment to commit suicide'' is an offence under

Section 306 of IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to 10 years and fine. Expression

''Abetment'' has been defined in Section 107 of IPC which

runs as under :-

"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 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 facilitates the commission

thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"

In the State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC

1532, the apex Court explaining the meaning and expanse of

word ''abetment'' as used in Section 107 of IPC, has held as

under:

"Abetment" as defined by Section

107 of the IPC comprises (i) instigation to

do that thing which is an offence, (ii)

engaging in any conspiracy for the doing

of that thing, and (iii) intentionally aiding

by any act or illegal omission, the doing of

that thing. Section 108 defines an abettor

as a person who abets an offence or who

abets either the commission of an offence

or the commission of an act which would

be an offence. The word "instigate" in the

literary sense means to incite, set or urge

on, stir up, goad, foment, stimulate,

provoke, etc. The dictionary meaning of

the word "aid" is to give assistance, help

etc.

In Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9

SCC 618, a three Judge Bench of the apex Court

explaining the meaning and connotation of word

"instigation" has held as under ( para. 20):

"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."

Taking note of the fact that each person''s suicidability

pattern is different from others and that each person has his

own idea of self-esteem and self-respect, the apex Court in

M. Mohan Vs. State of Madras, 2011 CRI.L.J. 1900 (S.C.),

referring to its earlier decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra

Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605, held

that to constitute abetment, there should be intention to

provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the

accused.

Reference can also be made to the decision of the apex

Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 261, wherein the

allegation was that the deceased was beaten by the accused

and was also subjected to harassment, due to which he

committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. The

apex Court referring to its earlier decisions in Mahendra

Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P., (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 731

and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9

SCC 618, holding that offence of abetment to commit

suicide under Section 306 of IPC is not made out, observed

as under:

"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".

In Deepak V. State of M.P., 1994 Cri. LJ 767 (M.P.), the

deceased girl was threatened with defamation, if she refused to

have sexual intercourse with two accused; within an hour she

committed suicide leaving a suicidal note. Accepting the plea

that the act of the accused might have been a reason for

committing suicide but the same did not constitute abatement

within the meaning of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the

IPC, it was held that - "neither there was any intention nor any

positive act on the part of the accused to instigate her or aid her

in committing suicide. The two accused persons, therefore,

cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the

I.P.C. and their conviction on that count by the trial Court, is

liable to be set aside."

In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 S.C. 1998, the accused was

charged under Section 306 of IPC for abetting his brother-in-law

to commit suicide; the accused allegedly said to him to ''go and

die''; the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that accused

is responsible for his death. It was held that words "go and die"

do not constitute instigation for mens rea of offence under

Section 307 of IPC.

In Mahendra Singh and Anr. Vs. State of M.P., 1996

Cri.L.J. 894=1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, a case prior to the

insertion of Section 113-A in the Evidence Act, the charge

under Section 306 IPC proceeded on the basis of dying

declaration of the deceased to the effect that - "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."

Considering legal sustainability of the same the apex Court

held as under:

"Abetment has been defined in Section 107

I.P.C. to mean that a person abets the doing of a

thing who firstly instigates any person to do a

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. Neither of the

ingredients of abetment are attracted on the

statement of the deceased."

From the aforesaid pronouncements of the apex Court,

it flows that to constitute abetment to commit suicide, there

must be material, prima-facie, indicating that accused with a

positive act on his part instigated, incited, aided or provoked

the person to commit suicide.

In the instant case, the allegation made in the suicide- note is that the petitioner had harassed the deceased because

the money borrowed by one Rajendra Singh was not being

repaid to the petitioner. The allegations that have been in the

suicide-note or statement of Bane Singh - father of the

deceased, even if taken true at their face value does not a

prima-facie indicate that the petitioner by positive act on his

part instigated, incited, aided or provoked the deceased to

commit suicide. A bare act of harassment in absence of

anything else cannot amount to abetment to commit suicide,

therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, on the

basis of material collected by the police during investigation

and filed with the charge-sheet, prima-facie a case under

Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner.

In Devendra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and another, (2009) 7 SCC 495, it has been held as under:

"when the allegations made in the first

information report or the evidences collected

during investigation do not satisfy the

ingredients of an offence, the superior courts

would not encourage harassment of a person in

a criminal court for nothing."

In the aforesaid premises, continuation of proceedings

against the petitioner for an offence under Section 306 of

IPC will be nothing but an exercise in futility. Apart that, it

will also result in wastage of valuable time of the trial Court,

therefore, in light of the decision of apex Court in State of

Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., 1992 Supp(1) SCC

335, it is a fit case for quashment of the proceedings.

Resultantly, the petition is hereby allowed and

proceedings in S.T.No. 296/16 pending before the Court of

2

nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur Distt. -Shajapur are

hereby quashed.