Prabhudayal Ahirwar vs State of M.P.

Narain Singh "Azad", J.

The petitioner seeks his discharge in S.T. No. 281/2001, pending in the Court of Second A.S.J., Tikamgarh, wherein a charge for offence punishable u/s 306/34, IPC is framed against him.

As per prosecution, on 29-4-1998, at about 1.00 A.M., Maniram Ahirwar and his wife Renka Ahirwar, quarrelled with deceased Munnalal Sahu. In quarrel, Renka gave him beating with Chappal, on his asking to pay price of ice. Thereafter, Maniram, Chhuttu alias Chotelal, went to the shop of Munnalal Sahu under the state of intoxication at about 8-9 P.M. and hurled abuses on Munnalal, on account of which, he committed suicide, in night by throwing himself on railway track.

Before recording opinion on the facts of present case, it is useful to quote following para''s of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P,, reported in 2002 Cr.LJ 3796 :--

In 1995 Supp ( 3) SCC 438 the appellant was -charged for an offence u/s 306, IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked 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 and Another, Gayatribai Vs. State of M.P., the appellant was charged for an offence u/s 306, IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under :--

My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband''s elder brother''s wife) harassed me. They beat be abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.

This Court, considering the definition of ''abetment'' u/s 107, IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence u/s 306 is not sustainablc merely on the allegation of harassment to 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, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence u/s 306, IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, 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 had set 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 difference in domcstice life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord the difference 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 abcting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

Then, it is found explained by Apex Court in Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) that even if in a case where in a quarrel, the accused told the deceased "to go and die" and the deceased committed suicide, the suicide being not the direct result of quarrel, in the absence of mens rea which is necessary concomitment of instigation, the accused cannot be said to had abeted the commission of suicide.

Consequently, the petitioner''s prosecution in S.T. No. 281/2001 for offences punishable u/s 306, IPC, deserves to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid legal position and hence, the same is quashed in exercise of inherent powers. The petitioner stands discharged for offence punishable u/s 306, IPC.