Sajjad Khan and Another vs State of M.P.

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—The petitioners herein/accused have filed this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 26/06/2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 402/2013 whereby charge under Sections 306 read with 34 of IPC has been framed against them. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 12/08/2011 at 12.55 in the night Dr. R.L. Singh, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Vidisha sent a written information to the Police Station, Civil Lines, Vidisha to the effect that one Rukhsana (since deceased) had brought to the hospital for treatment by her brother. On examination, she was found dead. On which, Merg u/s 174 of the Code was registered. The Merg was inquired into. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioners/accused used to torture the deceased and turned out her from the house as a result of which, she was annoyed and under stress committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance, therefore, offence u/s 306/ 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners/accused. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners herein/accused before the Committal Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the learned Trial Court for the trial.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Sections 306/ 34 of IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 2, Sajjad Khan is son of the petitioner No. 1, Jamil Khan. According to him, as per prosecution case, prior to 25-30 days of the alleged incident, the deceased was turned out from the house by the accused, thereafter, she remained at her parental house for about 25 to 30 days and committed the suicide thereby consuming poisonous substance and, therefore, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in toto even then also, no case under Sections 306/ 34 of IPC is made out as the necessary ingredients are totally missing. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petition may be allowed and the charge framed against the petitioners may be quashed.

In response, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned order and submits that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance because the petitioners have harassed and expelled her from the house, therefore, she committed the suicide.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

For framing charge u/s 306, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that there should be material to indicate that accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:-

Section 306 :-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.

Abetment has been defined in Sections 107 and 109 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under:

Section 107. -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.

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

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment of abetment which reads as under:

Section 109 -Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

Section 306 of Indian Penal Code makes abetment of the commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide.

In the case of Madiya @ Mahadev Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (5) MPHT 248 it was alleged that the petitioner tried to outrage modesty of the deceased, therefore, she felt ashamed very much and after two days committed suicide, the Trial Court framed charge u/s 306 of IPC. This Court in that situation held that the petitioner/accused cannot be held guilt for commission of the offence u/s 306 of IPC as there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of the petitioner and the act of the deceased. Since, period of two days elapsed between the two incidents, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner/accused instigated the deceased to commit the suicide.

On due consideration of the facts of the present case, it becomes abundantly clear from the material collected during the investigation that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with one Illiyas, 05 years prior to the date of the alleged incident. On 28/02/2011, the petitioner No. 1, Sajjad Khan took the deceased from the bus-stand Vidisha to his house when she was going to her matrimonial house. She was searched out. When she was not traced out, then the brother of the deceased, Naim lodged a report regarding missing of his sister at the Police Station, Kotwali, Vidisha. The missing person''s report was inquired into. During the enquiry, the petitioners produced the deceased at the Police Station, Kotwali, Vidisha where statement of the deceased was recorded. On the basis of the statement of the deceased, she was allowed to go with the petitioners and the case was closed. The petitioners kept her with them for about 3-4 months and turned out her from their house by committing marpeet. The deceased telephoned to her brother from Raisen, then her brother went to Raisen and brought the deceased to his house at Satpada, she stayed for about 25-30 days there and used to weep on account of giving divorce by her husband, Illiyas and Sajjan Khan & Jamil Khan have also not behaved properly and expelled her from their house, therefore, on account of this, she consumed the poisonous substance and committed the suicide.

In view of the above, it becomes abundantly clear that there is no direct or indirect connection between the alleged act of the petitioners/accused and the act of the deceased for commission of the suicide. It appears that under great stress and depression as well as feeling ashamed by the conduct of the petitioners, she committed the suicide. Apparently, the charge under Sections 306/ 34 of IPC is not sustainable against the petitioners merely on the ground that the deceased felt ashamed, under great stress and depression, she committed the suicide. Even on accepting the prosecution evidence in its entirety and as a whole, prima facie, no ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 306/ 34 is made out, therefore, the learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing the charge against the petitioners.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court framing charge against the petitioners under Sections 306/ 34 is set aside and the said charge stands quashed. The petitioners are accordingly discharged from the offence.

With the aforesaid, the revision petition sands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.