Sachin Tamrakar vs State of M.P.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—On behalf of the applicant -accused, this revision is directed u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order

dated 11.11.2010 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Katni in S.T. No. 243/10 framing the charge against the applicant

for the offence u/s 306 of IPC.

The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 6.8.2010 at about 9.30 on receiving the information from one Manoj Kumar

regarding unnatural death of Ku. Meghna a merge intimation bearing no. 63/10 was registered at P.S. Kuthla. As per averments of such inquest at

about 2.45 in the noon on dated 5.8.2010 said Meghna had committed suicide by hanging in her home.

In the course of enquiry of inquest report on making the interrogation from the parents, brother and relatives of the deceased-Meghna, it was

revealed that accused being resident of same village used to humiliate and harass her regularly with funny acts by which she felt herself humiliated

and under such instigation and abetment of the applicant committed suicide by hanging in her home, on which the FIR was registered at the same

Police Station on 15.9.2010 against the applicant for the above mentioned offence. In the course of interrogatory statements of the parents of the

deceased namely Vinod Kumar Gupta and Premila Gupta, brother Mayank Gupta, the nearest Neeraj relatives Manoj Kumar and Pushpalate,

Subhdeo Nayak, Ramesh and Pradeep Kumar were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the applicant was charge sheeted for such

offence. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, considering the charge sheet, the charge of Section 306 of IPC was framed against the

applicant. He abjured the same. Thereafter being dissatisfied with such order has come to this court with this revision for quashment of the charge.

Shri Aditya Sharma, learned appearing counsel for the applicant after taking me through the papers of the charge sheet alongwith the impugned

order and also the papers, which are not the part of charge sheet, placed on behalf of the applicant on record said that on taking into consideration

the face value of the prosecution case as it is, even then the applicant could not be convicted for the above mentioned offence as any of the

ingredients of the abetment as defined u/s 107 of IPC are not made out against him. By referring the interrogatory statements of brother and other

relatives and neighbourers recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C said that on such statements also the ingredients of abetment have not been established.

Thus, in the lack of such prima facie evidence the aforesaid charge framed by the trial court is not sustainable. In continuation he said that there is

no evidence in the charge sheet showing the applicant has instigated to the deceased by committing or practicing any funny acts with her which

could be deemed to be sufficient to commit the suicide. Merely on the fact committing suicide by Ku. Meghna, the charge of alleged offence could

not be sustained against him. He further said that before committing suicide the deceased Ku. Meghna in her life time had given a written note like

suicidal note, Annexure A-2 to the applicant contending in Hindi Language that she is writing the same in her full conscience and she being 18 years

of the age has absolute right on her life and because of the torture of the family members and the community, she is committing suicide. The same

was also signed by the deceased. Although such document was not seized by the Police during investigation, therefore, same was not filed as part

of the charge sheet, but subsequent to death of Ku. Meghna alongwith a report in writing a copy of such note was given to the Superintendent of

Police, Katni on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to make proper enquiry regarding death of Ku. Meghna. In this respect he also said that on

taking into consideration such suicidal note also the case of Section 306 of IPC is not made out against him even for framing the charge and by

placing his reliance on various reported cases prayed for setting aside the impugned charge by admitting and allowing this revision.

On the other hand, learned PL by justifying the impugned order of framing charge against the applicant said that the same is in consonance with

the papers of the charge sheet as well as the provision of Section 306, r/w Section 107 of IPC. According to him as per collected evidence by the

investigating agency, it is apparent that due to funny activities of the applicant towards the deceased in regular course of life, she felt herself insulted

and humiliated in her family and society. Pursuant to such instigation she has committed suicide. He further said that in view of the settled legal

position the suicidal note submitted by the applicant being not part of the charge sheet could not be taken into consideration for setting aside the

charge. Such document could be used by the applicant at the appropriate stage of the trial in his defence. But on that basis he could not be

discharged. He also argued that for the sake of argument, if the suicidal note is taken into consideration, even then the applicant could not be

discharged because after receiving the suicidal note from the deceased in her life time the applicant came to know that she is going to commit

suicide, inspite that he did not inform such fact to any of her family members or the public authority to save her life and thereby omitting this duty,

he facilitated and instigated the deceased for committing suicide and disclosed such suicide note only after committing suicide by her. So in such

premises, also he could not be discharged in the matter and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

Having heard, keeping in view the arguments, advanced by the counsel after going through the copy of the charge sheet and other papers

available on record including the aforesaid suicidal note placed by the applicant''s counsel on record- Annexure A-2, I am of the considered view

that the trial court has not committed any error in framing the aforesaid charge against the applicant 7. It is apparent from the interrogatory

statements of the parents of the deceased, brother and other relatives that Ku. Meghna in her life time was regularly subjected to harassment

humiliation and under torture because of the funny activities of the applicant towards her. Whenever she visited outside the house, on the way by

carrying out the funny activities, the applicant insulted and humiliated her and thereby he instigated her to commit suicide. At this stage only to

discharge the applicant different interpretations to the interrogatory statement of the above mentioned witnesses could not be given by the court. As

per settled proposition on availability of prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence in the charge sheet against the accused, the court has no

option except to frame the charge of such offence irrespective of fact whether on holding the trial, the case will be culminated in conviction or not.

At the stage of framing the charge of Section 306 of IPC the Court has to see whether prima facie ingredients of the abetment on the part of the

accused towards the deceased for committing the suicide are available in the charge sheet or not, undisputedly the definition of abetment of a thing

has not been provided separately in Section 306 of IPC. The same is defined u/s 107 of IPC. As per settled proposition, the abetment to commit

suicide is always examined in view of the ingredients defined u/s 107 of IPC. Thus, before proceeding further as ready reference the provision of

Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC is reproduced here. The same is read as under:-

Abetment of suicide.-

(i) 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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 107 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 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.

According to aforesaid Section 107 of IPC on juxtapose reading of aforesaid both the Sections, then it is apparent that to form the charge of

Section 306 of IPC, there must be prima facie evidence in the charge sheet that by any act or omission of the accused, the deceased was instigated

to commit suicide or/and the concern abetor engaged some one or involved himself with other in some conspiracy pursuant to their any act or

omission the deceased proceeded for and committed suicide or/and the accused intentionally by any act or omission had given aid to deceased to

commit suicide and pursuant to that such person committed suicide. In the light of these ingredients on examining the case at hand, it is apparent

from the interrogatory statements of the parents, brother and other relatives of the deceased that whenever the deceased visited the market either

to go school or for some other purpose, she was always subjected to harassment humiliation and torture with funny acts by the applicant and due

to such activities and behavior of the applicant she felt herself insulted in family as well in the community and pursuant to such instigation, she

proceeded to commit suicide and committed the same, In such premises, only one inference could be drawn that she was instigated to commit

suicide by the applicant and not others. Accordingly prime facie ingredients of abetment to commit suicide is available in the charge sheet against

the applicant. In such premises, the trial court has not committed any error in framing the alleged charge.

My aforesaid view is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dammu Sreenu Vs. State of A.P., , in which it was held

that due to any wrongful or illegal activities, conduct and behaviour of the accused if a person (deceased) after feeling himself insulted and

humiliated committed suicide, then it shall be deemed that the deceased was instigated by such accused for committing the suicide. Although such

case was decided on different context taking into consideration the illicit relations of the wife of deceased with some other person by which the

deceased felt himself to be humiliated and insulted and committed suicide. But in any case the ratio of such principle laid down in the cited case till

the aforesaid extent is applicable to the case at hand.

Coming to consider the another aspect of the case that the suicidal note, Annexure A-2, which is not part of the charge sheet, filed by the

applicant on record could be taken into consideration at the stage of framing the charge. In the light of the Constitutional Bench decision of the

Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, holding that at the stage of framing the charge document filed by the

accused in his defence could not be taken into consideration. The same could be used by the accused in his defence at the appropriate stage of the

trial. In such premises, I am of the considered view that taking into consideration the alleged suicide note placed by the accused- applicant on

record by allowing this revision, in the case at hand, the applicant could not be discharged. Such document could be used by the applicant in his

defence at the appropriate further stage of the trial and not the stage of framing the charge.

Apart the above, for the sake of arguments, if the aforesaid suicidal note placed by the applicant, which is not part of the charge sheet, is taken

into consideration at the stage of the charge, even then in the case at hand, the applicant could not be discharged because as per case of the

applicant such suicidal note was given to him by the deceased in her life time before committing the suicide. On receiving such suicide note, the

applicant came to know that for the reasons stated in such note, she (Ku. Meghna) is going to commit suicide, then to save her life the applicant

could have informed such fact to any of the family members or the public authority, but he did not do so. By this act of omission also the applicant

involved himself in such conspiracy with the deceased and thereby facilitated and instigated, the deceased Ku. Meghna to commit suicide. In such

premises, also prima facie it could not be said that the applicant had not given the alleged abetment to deceased to commit suicide.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order framing the charge against the

applicant. So far the case laws cited on behalf of the applicant are concerned, in the available set of facts of the case, as discussed stated above,

the same being distinguishable on facts are not helping to the applicant. Resultantly, this revision being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at

the stage of motion hearing.

The revision is dismissed as indicated above.