Shivcharan Raghuvanshi vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J

On the joint request made by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

This revision petition u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, preferred by the accused-petitioner is directed against an order dated 22/7/14 passed in S.T. No. 135/14 by the Sessions Judge Vidisha, thereby framing charge against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable u/s 306 of I.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that on 28/12/13, Lal Singh committed suicide by taking poisonous substance "sulfas pills". It is alleged by the prosecution that soon before death, statement of the deceased was recorded by the police u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and on the same day, at about 10-35 p.m., his dying-declaration was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate. In the dying-declaration, it is mentioned by the deceased that "he has taken poisonous substance because he was unable to do much more work", whereas in the police case-diary statement, the deceased stated that "today I have taken three sulfas pills. I was engaged by Shivcharan Raghuvanshi, Kolija, P.S. Nataran for doing work of ploughman and since (Shivcharan) took more work from him therefore he (deceased) has taken sulfas pills."

It is submitted by Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner that even if all the allegations as mentioned in the charge-sheet are taken to be true, no offence u/s 306 of I.P.C. has been made out against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that without any allegation amounting to abetment u/s 107 I.P.C., no offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon. Apex court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner be set aside.

The learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision-petition.

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the entire case has been perused.

At this juncture, it would be necessary to look to the relevant provisions of the law.

Section 306 I.P.C. under which the accused is charged reads as under:

306 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. sets out as to what constitutes abetment. The Section reads as follows:

"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.

In view of the evidence collected by the prosecution as discussed above and on perusal of the statement given by the deceased himself, it is crystal clear that the deceased has taken poisonous substance on his own because he was unable to perform the work more competently and effectively. If it was so, then he could have resigned from the duty instead of choosing another path. It clearly therefore appears that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct. Thus, taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of ''abetment'' are totally absent in the present case to constitute an offence against the petitioner u/s 306 I.P.C.

In the result, the revision stands allowed. The impugned order dated 22/7/14 framing charge u/s 306 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge u/s 306 of I.P.C.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned for information and compliance.