Praksh Ahuja @ Picky vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the extra jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime

No.307/2017, registered at Police Station, Sihora, District Jabalpur for offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

Rajkumar committed suicide by consuming poison leaving a suicide note. According to the suicide note, he was upset, for he was in the habit of

gambling. There has been burden of loans on his shoulder. He could not see his mother who fell down and was suffering. In the suicide note he

further said that the persons from whom he borrowed the money are responsible for his death. After his death, action be taken against Sonu Kathal,

Ravi Panjabi, Vikky and Pikky and sons of proprietor of Bhagwandas & company. Police Station, Sihora lodged the crime No. 307/2017 under Section

306 of the IPC, against the accused persons. Petitioners are the sons of Preetam Lal Ahuja the proprietor of “Bhagwandas and Co.â€​

On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that the applicants are sons of proprietor of “Bhagwandas & Company.†Even if, the entire prosecution

evidence is considered at its face value, no offence is made out, for the applicants have not instigatedand abated the deceased to commit to suicide. It

is also argued that they had given loan to the deceased. They would never want the deceased should die for their loan was at stake. It is also contend

that the petitioners have not instigated in the commission of suicide. Therefore, no prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent opposed the contention and it is contended that applicants are responsible for harassing the deceased for

recovering their loan amount and it resulted in the commission of the offence, therefore, applicants are responsible.

Perused the record.

Post mortem report indicte that deceased died due to the effect of poison. The statements of wife of the deceased Smt.Laxmi Chawla indicate that

the accused persons including Sonu Kathal, Ravi Panjabi and applicants were repeatedly asking to Rajkumar to repay the amount. She indirectly

admitted gambling and because of which he had taken loans. She says that her mother-in-law (Vidya Bai) fell down in the courtyard and suffered

fracture on the waist. Treatment of Vidya Bai was going on. Doctor had asked for operation. Meanwhile the accused persons were pressurizing

Rajkumar to repay their amount. Â On 21/07/2017, Rajkumar returned from the shop at about 11.30.to 12.00 in the night. Early, in the morning he was

found dead by his daughter, froth was coming out his mouth. Vidya Bai was also found dead. It seems that the deceased had given poison to his

mother Vidya Bai.

The suicide note is reproduced below for reference:

vyfonk nksLrks

tk jgk gwW viuh ,d cqjh yr ds dkj.k eq>s viuh vkSj vius

ifjtuksa dh tku nsuh iM jgh gSA eSa ftanxh ls gkj pqdk gwW vius tqavk [ksyus dh yr ds dkj.k dtZ flj ls mij gks pqdk gS dtZnkj jkst ijs'kku djrs gS ml ij ls

ekW dk fxj tkuk vkSj mudk rMiuk eq>ls ns[kk ugha tk jgk gS blfy;s eS ekW dks tgj nsdj mlds ckn viuh csfV;ksa dks ekjdj [kqn Hkh tgj ihdj vius izk.k

R;kx jgk gwWA esjh ekSr ds ftEesnkj ftuls eSus dtZ fy;k Fkk vkSj C;kt lfgr nqxuk Hkh ns pqdk gwW ij oks eq> ij vkSj iSlk nsus dk ncok cukrs gS

ftuesa lksuw dBy] jfo iatkch ,oa tcyiqj ds ,d lqikjh O;kikjh Hkxokunl ,aM daiuh ds nks iq= foDdh ,oa fiDdh ges'kk eq>s /kedh nsdj iSlksa dh ekax djrs

Fks tcfd lcdk iSlk eSa ewy/ku ls T;knk ns pqdk gwW vr% bu C;kt[kksjksa ij esjs ejus ds ckn l[r dk;Zokgh dh tkos rkfd ;s fdlh vkSj dks ijs'kku u dj ldsA

jktdqekj

lgh@&vLi""V

21-07-2017 jkf= 4 cts ds ckn

It would be appropriate to describe the provision of Section 306:

“Section 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.Â​

It is also necessary to understand what actually constitute “abatementâ€​.

“Abatmentâ€Âhas been defined under Section 107 of I.P.C, which reads as follows:""Section107, Abatment of a thing- A person abets the doing of

a thing, who- First- Instigates any person to do that thin; 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

ThirdlyIntentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1: A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes

or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

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.â€​

In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., reported as (2002) 5 SCC371, in the Apex Court has analyzed the ingredients of

Section 107 of the IPC. According to the apex court “instigate†denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to

stimulate or incitePresensce 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 dieâ€​, cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.â€​€

Ram Naresh and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported as 2002 (2) MPHT 183 this Court has examined in similar situated and held that:

“The accused persons were charge sheet under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the

deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his(suicide) death. However, it was found that none of the

accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to

refund/repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased

could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and thresatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police

officials might have declined to record the report. In that case he could have moved higher officials. But instead of taking this legal and legitimate

action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged

commission of the offence was made out against the accused persons.â€​

In the case of Radhesyam Vs. State of M.P., reported as 2014 Cr.L.R.(M.P.) 416, it is held that,

“framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC no evidence of abetment to commit suicide-money borrowed to the deceased and demanding

back of money was not an act of harassment- Demand of loan amount is not an abetment under Section 107 of the IPC.â€​

In the case of Vivek Kumar Jain and another Vs. State of M.P. and another, reported as 2015(1) MPHT 75. This Court like on the earlier judgment

of Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P, reported as 2009 (2) MPLJ, 147, Radhesyam Vs. State of M.P., reported as 2014 Cr.L.R.(M.P.), 416. As laid

down that despite having committed suicide leaving suicide note- In the suicide note, deceased mentioned that the petitioners were pressuring him for

the money, which the deceased lost in paying MCH match- Criminal case was registered- Hence, petition for quashing FIR, charge sheet and

proceedings- Held- Petitioners did not in manner instigate, incite or provoke deceased to commit suicideTherefore, they cannot be charged under

Section 306 of the IPC- Hence, FIR and proceedings initiated against petitioners are liable to be quashed.â€​

 With the above analysis of factual and legal aspects it would be appropriate to hold that in the present case the accused persons, even if demanded

the money borrowed by the deceased. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide, for it was their money which was at stake. They

would be the last person to wish that Rajkumar could commit suicide. Otherwise also the accused persons had no mensrea which is an important

ingredient in commission of offence. The basic ingredient of Section 107 of IPC to commit suicide i.e. abetment is missing. Therefore, the FIR at

Crime No.307/2017 registered at Police Station, Sihora, District Jabalpur is quashed, as regarding the petitioners Praksh Ahuja and Sunil Ahuja.

This petition is allowed. The petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.