Salim Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Raipur in ST No.92/2005, whereby, the accused/appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant time the deceased Abdul Hanif and accused/appellant Saleem were running motorcycle repair shop in the roadside near Budhapara, Raipur. Both were having their separate shops. On 13.08.2004, the accused Salim Khan has beaten the Abdul Hanif alleging that he has stolen the motorcycle silencer from his shop. He has also taken certain tools from the shop of the deceased forcefully. Thereafter on the next day i.e. 14.08.2024, the deceased did not come to the shop and committed suicide by hanging in the roof of the house of his elder brother namely Abdul Hamid (PW-17). The suicide note was also written on the wall that the appellant has insulted him and he has not committed any theft and Salim has beaten him and requested his brother for justice.

After the incident, Merg Intimation was given by Abdul Hamid and same was recorded on 15.08.2004 vide Ex.P-12 at about 7:40 AM. Panchnama with regard to suicide note was prepared vide Ex.P-1. The death inquest was carried out by giving notice Ex.P-2 and inquest Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-3. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14) who prepared the PM report (Ex.P-9) and opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The cloth (Lungi) which was used for hanging was seized vide Ex.P-17. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-20. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the appellant on 17.08.2004 at Police Station Modahapara, Raipur.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated. However, he has not adduced any evidence in his defence.

The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the initial paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable inasmuch as there was small quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on account of theft committed in his shop and the appellant made an enquiry from the deceased and on some suspicion such quarrel took place. She further submits that though there is allegation of beating the deceased, however, there was no intention in any manner on the part of the appellant to instigate the deceased for committing suicide and no specific element of abetment has been found as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. Even the deceased has not made any complaint to the police regarding the alleged act of beating. She further submits that merely because allegation of theft is levelled on him, it cannot be said to be the cause for committing suicide as overall circumstances and evidence of the case could not establish the abetment for committing such act, therefore, the trial Court has committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charge.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the same has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the relevant time the deceased Abdul Hanif and appellant Salim Khan were running shop of motorcycle vehicle repair near the corner of street. One day prior to the incident i.e. on 13.08.2024 the appellant has made certain allegation against the deceased that he has committed theft of silencer from his shop and he has also beaten the deceased on such suspicion. Thereafter, on the subsequent day i.e. 14.08.2024 the deceased at his elder's brother's house committed suicide by hanging. The Merg intimation to this effect has been reported by his elder brother Abdul Hamid (PW-17) to the police which has been registered as Ex.P-12. Further, Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14), who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and prepared medical report (Ex.P-9), opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Such opinion of the doctor has not been disputed by any of the evidence.

At this stage, the only question arises for consideration is that whether the appellant in any manner has instigated or abetted to commit suicide.

In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of Section 306 IPC, it is important to carefully examine the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC deals with the abetment of suicide. The term "abetment of a thing" is defined under Section 107 of the IPC. For ready reference, Section 107 of the IPC as well as Section 306 of the IPC is reproduced hereunder:-

"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."

****

"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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618], have examined the different shades of meaning of "instigation". For the sake of brevity the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"20. 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."

Further, in the matter of S. S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Ors {[MANU/SC/0585/2010] : [(2011)2SCC (Cri) 465], where the deceased committed suicide and left the suicide note stating that he did not commit any theft and made allegation against some persons who were responsible for such act, after examining the scope of Section 306 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day to day life. It is also observed that human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other and different people behave differently in the same situation and consequently, the order of framing charge under Section 306 IPC against the said accused was set-aside.

Similarly, in the matter of Pradeep Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [MANU/MP/1105/2025] decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench), a theft was committed in the shop of Krishna Sales which was owned by petitioner's father. The deceased was salesman in the said shop. The petitioner has made allegation against the deceased that he has committed theft from his shop and demanded money from the deceased for such theft. Due to such allegation, the deceased committed suicide and left the suicide note. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the charges levelled against the petitioner observing that the petitioner has not abetted and had no intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide at any point of time.

In the present case, at the place of incident the deceased wrote a suicide note on the wall that appellant has insulted him, he has not committed any theft and requested for justice from his brother. The said fact has also been reiterated by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence. However, the prosecution has failed to establish a connection or link between the suicide committed by the accused and element of abetment by the appellant as per provisions of Section 107 and Section 306 IPC.

From the above discussion and in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is explicit that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, a specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC on the part of accused with intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned is required. In the present case there is no evidence to establish the act of instigation or abetment which is crucial element to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC are set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charge.

The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.