Jugal Kishore vs State of M.P.

Uma Nath Singh, J.—This criminal revision arises out of an order dated 10.9.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, in Sessions Trial No.97/2002, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the contentions of the applicant and framed a charge u/s 306 of the IPC.

It appears from the record that deceased Durga Banjara had purchased a tractor on bank loan. One-fourth of the loan amount being Rs.90,000/- was paid to the Bank, after taking loan from the accused applicant Jugal Kishore. As the deceased was not in position to pay back the loan on due date, the accused applicant took away his tractor. However, subsequently the same was returned to the deceased after he made a part payment of Rs.30,000/-. A demand for payment of outstanding loan amount of Rs.60,000/- was made by the accused applicant. He visited the residence of the deceased in that connection who assured to make payment by selling out gold ornaments. The accused advised the deceased to hand over him the said ornaments and meet him in his village to settle the accounts. It also appears that the deceased accordingly went to village of the accused on the same day, but he was told that the accounts could not be settled because the Bank had organized a camp on that day. It also appears that the deceased again visited the accused next day with one Laxmi Narayan, but he was ill-treated and threatened with police action. And his accounts were not settled. The deceased is said to have returned home. He went to his field where he consumed some poisonous substance and started vomiting. He was taken to a hospital where he died. It also appears that he left a suicide note, wherein he mentioned that his accounts were not settled by the accused who accompanied by two other persons was standing with lathis and also threatened him with police action. Accordingly, a Marg was registered and on inquiry FIR was lodged. Ultimately on investigation, Police laid a challan and the Court framed a charge u/s 306, IPC.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Jai Singh submitted that the alleged act of the accused in not settling the accounts on the scheduled day when the deceased visited his place and his threat of police action cannot be said to be acts of instigation as the same were not intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Mr.Singh also referred to various decisions of this Court as well as of Hon''ble the Apex Court rendered in similar circumstances where the Hon''ble Court has held that the ingredients of Sections 107 and 306, IPC were not attracted. The cases so referred are as under:

(a) Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) M.P. WN.73, Note No.34.

In this case it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that if a borrower says to creditor that he may commit ''suicide'', it does not amount to instigation. It was also held that any conversation between borrower mid creditor does not amount to an offence of abetment to commit suicide:

(b) Gajadhar Prasad Patel v. State of M.P., 2003(1) M.P. WN.100, Note No.46.

In this case also it was held that the accused should intentionally aid or facilitate the commission of suicide. It was also held that framing of charge affects personal liberty of accused, therefore, the Court must satisfy itself on the survey materials on record, that prima facie complicity of the accused in commission of offence is probable.

(c) Prabhu Dayal Ahirwar v. State of M.P., 2003(1) M.P. WN.166.

In this case it was held that suicide is not the direct result of quarrel and in the absence of mens rea the accused cannot be held guilty of abetment to commit suicide.

(d) 1995 Supp ( 3) SCC 438 .

In this case, during a quarrel the accused made a remark to the deceased like "go and die". This utterance of words was not taken as instigation for deceased to commit

suicide and;

(e) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . It has been held that presence of mens rea is a necessary concomitant of instigation.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State supported the framing of charges and referred to the suicide note in support of his submission.

On due consideration of rival submissions and from perusal of records, it appears that the accused applicant has been alleged to have taken away the family ornaments of the deceased and did not settle his outstanding loan accounts in respect of purchase of a tractor. However, the content of the suicide note and the materials collected during the investigation do not disclose that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The said suicide note on English translation reads as under:

Durga S/o Khimaji, r/o Gomalya, I write that Jugal Gupta of Rampura is demanding the loan amount of rupees sixty thousand. As per agreement, the money was to be returned on the full moon day of Kartik. Hence, Jugal Gupta came to my house and demanded money I did not have money. I said ''Sethji'' after selling the ornaments, I would pay back the money. Gupta suggested that he would keep possession of the ornaments. Therefore, he was handed over the ornaments. Gupta said that he would settle the rate after showing it to a Goldsmith and told me to come by the train which starts at 3 O''clock. I went to Rampura. Guptaji said that today the bank is organizing a camp. Come tomorrow. Therefore, I went with Laxminarayan. Gupta took me to the house of Sunil Natta. Sunil Natta, Jugal Gupta and his brother Nanda, all three, were standing there with lathis to beat me, they threatened me with police action and grabbed the ornaments of 20 Tola gold, a Reval of four Tola gold and a payal of seven hundred grams silver which were worth the costs of trolley. They have grabbed my ornaments. Hence, I finish my life. Therefore, I write if". Similar statements have been made to the police by the family members of the deceased. In the absence of specific material to show that the acts of the accused are covered under the ingredients of section 107, IPC, charge u/s 306, IPC cannot endure. The gist of allegations, as it appears from record, is that the accused took away the ornaments of deceased, grabbed it, threatened police action and did not settle his outstanding loan accounts. These acts of the accused prima facie do not appear to constitute abetment as defined u/s 107, IPC. There is no material to show that he has "intentionally" aided or instigated the deceased to end his life. It also does not appear that the accused had finally refused to settle the outstanding loan accounts against the value of ornaments and had instigated or intentionally aided the commission of suicide in any manner. Hence, trial of the accused upon a charge u/s 306, IPC on such materials would be only an exercise in futility. Thus framing of a charge u/s 306, IPC has led to miscarriage of justice. The charge as such being not sustainable in law is hereby quashed. Resultantly the criminal revision is allowed.