Mudassir Khan vs State of M.P. & others

This criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dewas in Special Session Trial No.177/2016 whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 305, 354(D) of IPC & Section 3(1)B(II), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act & Section 11(iv), 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the deceased was living in village Mandli in house of her maternal aunt. After her examination, in summer vacation, she used to come back to her parents house at Tarana, District Ujjain. It is alleged that on 01.06.2016, sister of the deceased Ravina, her mother and another sister Savita went to the house of the Maansingh Patel for sorting onions. The deceased was alone at house. They came back to the house at about 1.00 pm for having food. At that time, the deceased and her younger brother Devkaran was also having food. At about 3.30 pm, sister Ravina came back to house and she saw the present applicant in the house. When she asked the deceased why he came to the house, she told her that he used to harass her and when she did not respond to his phone calls, he came back to the house, and thereafter, when they came back from work, they found the deceased hanging from fan. The similar statements were given by all the family members but no suicide note was left.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no abetment from the present applicant, due to which, she committed suicide. The suicide note does not indicate any such instigation which amounted to abetment under Section 107 of IPC.

The applicant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. state of MP reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 in which, it was held that ingredients of section 107 of IPC should present for taking the act as abetment of the suicide. "Instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as "to go and die", cannot be taken to the uttered with mens rea.

Placing reliance on this judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicant argues that in the present case, the present applicant was not present when the deceased committed suicide. He was living separately, therefore, it cannot be taken as abetment on his part, due to which the deceased committed suicide.

To see whether, the deceased committed suicide on being abetted by the present applicant, there should present one of the ingredients as stated in section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC requires either of three overt acts on behalf of the persons said to have abetted the suicide:

"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."

Apart from the above judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujarat reported at 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 955 whereby the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under :- "26. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide."

Applying the principle laid down in above cases on the present case, it is apparent that the present applicant was only seen with the deceased sometime prior to her death. By suicide in her own house, no act amounting to abetment of suicide was assigned to him. Even it is assumed that he was harassing the deceased, it is not shown as to how such harassment was amounted to abetment in terms of Section 107 of IPC as held in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra) by the Apex Court. As such, in my considered opinion, so far as the present applicant is concerned, no charge prima-facie is made out under Section 306 of IPC and no charge is made out in other sections 3(1)B(II), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act & Section 11(iv), 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In considered opinion of this Court this revision deserves to be allowed and hereby allowed. The present applicant is discharged from charges under Section 306 of IPC & Section 3(1)B(II), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act & Section 11(iv), 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of.