Manish vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 02/11/2017 passed by learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in session trial No. 498/2017

whereby the trial Court has framed charges against theapplicant for commission of the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code ( in

short “ IPCâ€​ ).

2 Briefly stating the facts are that on 18/04/2016, Police got an information from Sub-Inspector Balram Raghuvanshi deceased Rahul Jain committed

suicide by hanging himself at his house. On the basis of said information police lodged Merg intimation No. 24/2016 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.

and investigate the matter. During investigation of Merg police seized one suicide note from the possesion of his father Ramchandra from the house of

deceased in which it is mention that the present applicant/accused alongwith other co-accused Mukesh had extorted lacs of rupees from him and they

threatened to kill him due to which the deceased committed suicide. On the basis of which, the police registered FIR for the offence punishable under

section 306 of IPC at Crime no. 135/2017 on 11/03/2017. The police arrested the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

filed.

3 Learned trial Court, after perusal of entire material on record , by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that prima-facie, charge under section

306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present revision before this

Court.

4 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and perused the records.

5 It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the sole document, on which the prosecution case rests is the suicide note alleged to have

been written by the deceased Rahul Jain before committing suicide, wherein he has only stated that applicant Manish and co-accused Mukesh should

have been responsible for his death. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is nowhere stated in the alleged suicide note that

the applicant / accused had ever instigated or provoked the deceased Omprakash for commission of suicide and if the applicant / accused had extorted

lacs of rupees from the deceased asking him to execute the sale deed, then by his act itself, ingredients of instigation for commission of suicide is

lacking and the offence under section 306 of IPC cannot be made out against the applicant. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge

against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC.

6 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Pappu @ Shankarlal Soni Vs. State of M.P

reported in 2017(1) MPLJ ( Cri) 47, State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh reported in AIR 1991 SC 1532, Rakesh KumarVs. State of Chhatisgarh reported

in (2001) 9 SCC 618, Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433 in which it is laid down that if ingredients of commission of

suicide, which is defined under section 107 of IPC are not proved by the prosecution, then certainly, charge under section 306 of IPC cannot be

framed. Abetment to commit suicide is an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. Expression “ Abetment “ has been defined in section

107 of IPC, which reads as under :

“107. Abetment of a thing.â€"A person abets the doing of a thing, whoâ€

First.â€"Instigates any person to do that thing;

or

Secondly.â€"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.â€"Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that

thing.â€​

7 In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 ( Suppl) Cr.L.R ( SC) 261 / (2010) 1 SCC 750, Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under :

“Abetment involves a mentalprocess of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on part of

accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained â€"In order to convict a persons under Section 306 IPC there has to

be a clear mens rea to commit the offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and

this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he committs suicide â€" Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim

committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victi belonged

and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide,

conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty â€" Herein, deceased

was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out

â€" Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable.â€​

The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017( 1 SCC (Cri) 134 is held as under:-

“ 12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that a person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also

it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or

aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC.â€​

The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 has

held 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. The intention of the Legislature is clear that in order to convict a

person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to 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 he/she commits

suicide.â€​

In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, the accused was charged under

section 306 of IPC for abeting his brother-in-law to commit suicide. The accused allegedly said to him to “ go and dieâ€. The deceased left behind

a suicide note stating that the accused is responsible for his death. It was held that the word “ go and dieâ€​ do not constitute instigation for mens ria

of offence under section 306 of IPC.

On perusal of the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased Rahul Jain, it is apparent that the appllicant and co-accused Mukesh

had extorted lacs of rupees from him and he had nothing remained and they threatened to kill him. From the suicide note, it does not appear that the

applicant had harassed the deceased to extort money. The allegation made against the applicant in the suicide note or in the statements of the

witnesses, even if taken true at their face value does not prima-facie indicate that the applicant by positive act on his part incited or provoked the

deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the aforesaid premises continuation of the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under section

306 of IPC will be nothing, but exercise in futility .

In the the aforesaid premises, prima-facie, no charge under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby made out against the applicant.

Consequently, present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02/11/2017 framing charge under section 306 of IPC against the

applicant is set aside and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charge.

C c as per rules.