Omprakash Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the FIR dated 1/9/2016 bearing Crime No. 523/16 alleging offence

punishable u/S 306 IPC registered by police station Dehat, District Vidisha (M.P.) against the present petitioners.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.

Bare facts reveal that on information received from Dr. Ashish Verma, inquest was registered in respect of the unnatural death of deceased Amit

Bansal, aged 42 years caused by consuming poisonous substance. Based on the inquest report, FIR was lodged on 1/9/2016 bearing Crime No. 523/16

by Police Station Dehat, District Vidisha which disclosed on the basis of the said inquest report which in turn was founded upon the statements of

Aman Bansal, brother of the deceased, Smt. Varsha Bansal, wife of the deceased, Ritesh Agrawal @ Pintu, Rahul Jain etc. inter alia disclosing that

on the issue of return of money lent to the deceased, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused namely Amit Agrawal, Banti Agrawal, Jeetu Maharaj

& Vishwajeet Sharma and Rakesh Gupta including the present petitioners Omprakash Agrawal and Antu @ Rupesh Jain used to subject the

deceased to mental cruelty which impelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance (sulphas tablets). On completion of

investigation which included recording of statements of the aforesaid witnesses and a few more and conduction of postmortem which opined cadio

respiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning to be the cause of death.

3.1 Besides the statements of the PWs as mentioned above, an important aspect which came to light and is reflected from Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement

of Aman Bansal (younger brother of the deceased) that while this witness was accompanying the deceased in an injured state from home to hospital,

the deceased informed the said witness that the accused including the petitioner herein used to pressurize him a lot by demanding return of money lent

to the deceased and for doing so, the petitioner and other co-accused induced the deceased to be addicted to gambling and that the accused continued

to extract money from the deceased in large quantum than what was actually due to the accused. Specifically in regard to the petitioner Omprakash

Agrawal, the said alleged oral dying declaration as disclosed from the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Aman Bansal reveals that in lieu of the loan of 5

lakhs taken by the deceased from the petitioner, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by uttering of abusive words, threats and intimidation to

disrepute the deceased in public eye. The oral dying disclosed disclosed further that the deceased thus committed suicide by consuming poisonous

substance.

3.2 The statements of the relatives of the deceased and as well as employees of the deceased are more or less in the same lines as disclosed above.

3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the available material on record and the evidence placed by the prosecution before the learned

trial judge in shape of charge-sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide.

3.4 The offence of section 306 IPC is directly founded upon the concept of abetment. If a person commits suicide and cause of death can be

attributable to another person with the aid or instigation doing or omitting to do something individually or in conspiracy with some other person or

intentionally aiding by illegal act or omission, then the person causing instigation, doing or omitting to do or aiding can be held responsible for abetment

to suicide. The Apex Court has succinctly explained the parameters of section 306 IPC in one of it's decision in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-

“6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under

Section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out Section 306 of the Code: ""306.

Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

“Abetmentâ€​ has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads as under:

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 places in

pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

 Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:

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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placedreliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3)

SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled were as under:-

1.....My mother-in-law and husband and sister-inlaw (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.

The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of

the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of

harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.

Learned counsel also placed reliance on anotherjudgment of thiscourt in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. Athree-Judge

bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered

you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like"". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court

in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of ""instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:

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.

3.4 From the analysis of the case, it is evident that the acts alleged against the petitioners of abuse, threats and intimidation are not grave enough to

compel a 42 year old man (deceased) to terminate his life. More so, the cause of threat shown on one side and suicide on the other do not have close

and proximate link. The link between the cause (threat, instigation, conspiracy or assisting/aiding) and the suicide ought to be live and strong enough to

persuade a man of ordinary prudence to be prima facie satisfied that in all probability the incident of suicide must be the outcome of threat, instigation,

conspiracy or assistance/aiding extended by accused. In the absence of any such material, mere threat by the accused cannot constitute abetement. It

is further necessary that the cause of suicide and the suicide should be in close proximity of time to each other. Long time gap between the two,

renders the all essential link, weak, vague and doubtful.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the considered view that the essential ingredients of 'abetment' are absent in the instant case so as

to constitute an offence punishable u/S. 306 of I.P.C.

Consequently, both the petitions are allowed with the following directions :-

FIR dated 1/9/2016 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom bearing Crime No. 523/16 alleging offence punishable u/S 306 IPC

registered by police station Dehat, District Vidisha (M.P.) against the present petitioners stand quashed.

All consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR also stand quashed.

No cost.