Shashi Choudhary vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

M.K. Mudgal, J.—Case diary is available.

The applicants-accused have filed this Criminal Revision u/s 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora district Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 322/2012 levelling the charges u/s 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C.

As per prosecution story, deceased Mukesh was husband of applicant No. 1 who got married to him in the year 2011. Applicant No. 2 Nimma Bai is the mother-in-law, applicant No. 3 Lallu Choudhary Mausia Sasur and applicant No. 4 maternal father-in-law. Deceased Mukesh had gone along with his wife Smt. Shashi Choudhary to his in-laws'' house on 28.02.2012. The wife of the deceased did not return with him. When the deceased was returning home on the way he consumed some poisonous substance. Thereafter he was taken to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. During treatment he died on the next date i.e. 29.02.2012. During inquiry, the statement of the deceased was recorded on 28.02.2012 by police and a suicide note was seized on 29.02.2012 from his pant. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora and in turn, the case was committed to the Court of Session the offence being triable by the Court of Session.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court has committed error in levelling the charges against the applicants as there is no evidence on record to connect the applicants for the offence u/s 306 of I.P.C. because the applicants did not abet the deceased for committing suicide. Learned counsel further contends that as per statement of the deceased recorded on 28.02.2012 he deposed consuming the injection of pesticides which is kept in wheat. Similarly, the suicide note which was seized from the pant of the deceased on 29.02.2012 does not contain any fact to indicate that the deceased was abetted by the applicants for committing suicide.

Learned counsel placing reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , pleads that if entire evidence is presumed to be correct no offence is made out against the applicants for levelling the charges u/s 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C.

On the aforesaid facts, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and discharging the applicants.

Learned PP opposing the statement made on behalf of the applicants contends that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and at this stage no inference is required in it.

Arguments were considered and case diary was perused.

The abetment has been defined u/s 107 of the I.P.C. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under S. 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. Also, reiterated, if it appears to court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty. Herein deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day-today life. In facts and circumstances of the case, none of the ingredients of offence u/s 306 was made out. Hence, appellant''s conviction held, unsustainable.

The statement of deceased recorded on 28.02.2012 reads as under:

On persual of the aforesaid dying declaration, it transpires that the deceased has not made any allegations against the applicants for committing cruelty with him or abetting him to commit suicide. On reading of the said statement, it is clear that deceased had consumed a pesticide injection voluntarily. When the said act was performed by the deceased the applicants were not present there. In the postmortem report, no injury was found on the body of deceased which indicates that deceased was not assaulted by anyone before consuming pesticide injection. Hence, on the basis of the said statement no inference can be drawn about the deceased having been abetted by the applicants for committing suicide.

As alleged by the prosecution story, suicide note was seized from the pant of the deceased on 29.02.2012 which reads as under:-

On perusal of the aforesaid suicide note, it cannot be construed that the deceased was abetted in any manner by the applicants for committing suicide. In the cited judgment Hon''ble Apex Court has referred to other Apex Court judgments in paras 9 to 12 as follows:

In 1995 Supp ( 3) SCC 438 , the appellant was charged for an offence u/s 306, I.P.C. 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, I.P.C. 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 me and 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, I.P.C. found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence u/s 306 is not sustainable 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, I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in 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 domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and 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 abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

Considering the aforesaid judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that there is no sufficient evidence on record for levelling the charges against the applicants u/s 306 of I.P.C. Learned trial Court has framed the charge by the impugned order without considering the aforesaid statements in a proper manner. Hence, it is found that the impugned order is not based on proper approach for framing charges, therefore, allowing the revision and setting aside the impugned order, the applicants-accused are discharged from the charges u/s 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C.. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled. The learned trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings pending against the applicants before the Court.