Kanni Lal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

M.K. Mudgal, J—With the consent of both the parties, the matter is being heard finally at motion stage.

The applicant-accused has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2014 passed by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 267/2014 whereby the charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. were levelled against the applicant-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that there is not single iota of evidence against the applicant-accused to connect him with the charges levelled by the learned trial court because the applicant-accused had not abetted the deceased Balram Yadav to commit suicide. The deceased did not leave any suicide note regarding the circumstances of his death and his dying declaration was not recorded in this case. As per statement of Dropdi and Leelabai, when the deceased was being assaulted by co-accused Ramu @ Ramdarshan, Monu and Krishna Kumar with kicks and fists in their courtyard, the applicant-accused was standing there but he did not cause any injury to the deceased. On the basis of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was abetted by the applicant-accused in any manner to commit suicide. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and discharging the applicant-accused.

Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions has supported the impugned order.

On perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased Balram committed suicide by hanging himself from a Mahua tree at Leeladhar Ahir''s field on the night between 29.6.2014 and 30.6.2014. The matter was informed to the police. Thereafter, a marg bearing No. 15/2014 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was registered. During investigation, it has come on record that the deceased was harassed by the applicant-accused and co-accused owing to which case was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Witnesses Dalchand, Misri Bai and Sevakram have not deposed anything against the applicant-accused. Though Dropdi Bai and Leelbai have deposed in their statement that when the deceased was being assaulted by Ramu @ Ramdarshan, Monu and Krishna Kumar in their courtyard, the applicant-accused was present there. On the basis of the said statement, it cannot be construed that the deceased was abetted by the applicant-accused in any manner to commit suicide. No evidence has been found in this case as defined under Section 107 of the I.P.C. Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998 : (2002) CriLJ 2796 : (2002) 1 DMC 773 : (2002) 1 JT 248 Supp : (2002) 4 SCALE 270 : (2002) 5 SCC 371 : (2002) 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 1 UJ 769 : (2002) AIRSCW 2035 : (2002) 3 Supreme 650 has discussed in para 9 to 12 as under:

"9. In Swamy Prahaladas vs. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased "to go and die". This Court was of the view 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 Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband''s elder brother''s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."

This Court, considering the definition of "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.

In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 AD 133 : AIR 2001 SC 3837 : (2001) CriLJ 4724 : (2001) 2 DMC 636 : (2001) 8 JT 599 : (2001) 7 SCALE 298 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 : (2001) AIRSCW 4282 : (2001) 7 Supreme 737 this Court was considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and bad set herself on fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:

"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

Apart from this, this court in the case of Smt. Gayatri and Others Vs. State of M.P., (2013) 2 JLJ 418 : (2013) 3 MPHT 101 has also elaborately discussed about the abatement in para 11 to 14 as under:

"11. As per the said Section, firstly; 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 I.P.C. The meaning of the said word was considered by the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) 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 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.

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 irrigating 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 by the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar''s case (supra), where the accused by the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. 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 willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful 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 Apex Court in Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 : (2008) CriLJ 2569 : (2008) 6 SCALE 192 : (2008) 11 SCC 215 : (2008) AIRSCW 3202 , by interpreting the provision of Section 306 of I.P.C. held as under:-

"8. 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 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 Section 306 of I.P.C.

......................................

Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally mens to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107, Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ''Abetted'' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.

In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated and deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 AIR SCW 4570)]."

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446 : (2009) CLT 1619 : (2009) 10 JT 698 : (2009) 11 SCALE 24 : (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2009) 13 SCR 230 : (2010) AIRSCW 645 , observed that the question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviors 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 individuals 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 ent his own life., which may either be an attempt for self protection or an escapism from intolerable self.

Considering the above pronouncements and judgments and the evidence of charge-sheet, it is concluded that there is no prima-facie evidence against the applicant-accused to charge him with the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. Resultantly, the charges framed under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the applicant-accused deserve to be set aside. Hence, allowing the revision, setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial court, the applicant-accused is hereby discharged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.