Smt. Radha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

Revisional powers of this Court u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the order dated 27. 06.2017 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge,

Shivpuri (M.P.) in ST No.242/2016 framing charge against the petitioner u/s 306/34 IPC.

Pertinently, the petitioner happens to be the widow of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.

The foundational factual matrix reveals that the deceased Satyanarayan Sharma got married to the petitioner in 2015. On 15.07.2016, an FIR was

lodged at the behest of R.S. Sengar, ASI, founded upon the inquest report in which the statements of Rakesh, Rahul, Smt. Ragini and Smt. Rani were

recorded and a suicide note was recovered from the place of incident disclosing that petitioner (wife of the deceased), sister-in-law Rekharani and

Banti @ Satyaprakash used to subject the deceased to cruelty which led to the deceased consuming poisonous substance. An offence punishable u/s

306/34 IPC was registered. The FIR further discloses that Omprakash Sharma [brother of the deceased] informed the police that the in-laws of

deceased resided in Tiwari Mohalla, Kolaras and that on 09.04.2016 the deceased had gone to his in-laws' place to fetch his wife. The report further

reveals that on the next day i.e. on 10.04.2016 the deceased came back from his in-laws' place without his wife and between 4-6 pm the deceased

went inside in his parental house and closed the doors from inside. The report further reveals that the deceased was under mental stress since a few

days. The said complainant Omprakash Sharma further disclosed as reflected from FIR that on the next day i.e. 11.04.2016 he had gone to some

other place and when he came back, his wife Smt. Rekha informed him that the deceased had not come out of his room since more than 24 hours.

The deceased was attempted to be contacted through cell phone but the said attempt did not succeed. Accordingly, police was informed. On arrival of

police, the doors were broken upon and the deceased was found lying dead on the floor.

4.1 The prosecution story is that a suicide note was left behind by the deceased which has been produced along with the list of documents bearing

document No.10158/2017 filed by the State on 21.11.2017 along with the letter of Station House Officer, Police Station, Kolaras which is to the

following effect:

eSa viuh bl ftUnxh ls rax vkdj ;g dne mBkus tk jgk gw¡ ftls ihNs esjs HkkbZ HkkHkh oaVh vkSj jk/kk gS blfy;s eSa bu yksxksa dh 'kDy rd ugha

ns[kuh blfy;s esjk lcls fuosnu gS fd esjs ejus ds ckn esjs vUR;sLVh rd u vkus fn;k tk; D;ksafd eSa Fkd pqdk gw¡ ,slh ftUnxh ls eSa rks fdlh dks crk

Hkh ugha ldrk fd bu yksxksa us esjk thou dSls cckZn fd;k gS vxj eSa lgh gW¡w rks eq>s fo'okl gS vius bZ'oj ij ;s yksx dHkh lq[kh ugha jg ldrs bl bu

ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh u dh tk; dsoy esjh vUR;sLVh rd u vkus fn;k tk; fdruk vPNk thou Fkk esjk lc cckZn gks x;k blfy;s eSa viuh cguksa ls vkSj lHkh ls

ekQh ekaxrk gw¡ ;s dne mBkus ds fy;s D;ksafd eSa ;s cnukeh dk thou ugha th ldrk blfy;s eq>s ekQ djuk

vkidk

lR;ukjk;.k

A plain reading of the above-said suicide note reflects that the exact reason of terminating his life was not revealed by the deceased but the

responsibility for the same has been fastened inter alia upon the petitioner [wife of the deceased]. The sum and substance of the suicide note is that

the wife of the deceased along with brother and sister-in-law of the deceased are responsible for all the grief and misery faced by the deceased.

5.1 The post-mortem report does not disclose any ante-mortem injury. The viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. The chemical report

of the viscera appears to be awaited as the same does not form part of the charge-sheet brought on record.

5.2 Be that as it may. Admittedly, the deceased was an able-bodied 30 years' old man who was under mental stress on account of certain reasons

which were not disclosed in the suicide note. There is nothing on record to reflect that the deceased was a man of meek or/and weak temperament

susceptible to taking of drastic step of committing suicide on being subjected to cruelty by his wife.

Mere hurling of abuses, intimidation, threats of any kind are not strong enough causes to compel a person of age of majority to end his or her life.

More strong and pressing reasons are required to be shown by the prosecution to make out a case for abetment to commit suicide. There should not

only be a strong but also live and proximate link between the cause and suicide so as to sustain a charge of abetment to commit suicide. This Court

has, time and again, reiterated that mere intimidation, insult or abuses are not good enough causes for making out a case of abetment to commit

suicide. Even the Apex Court has been of the same view. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh [(2010)1 SCC 750] is worth reproducing wherein the concept of abetment and existence of live & proximate link as a pre-requisite to make

out a charge u/s 306 of IPC has been elaborately explained, relevant paragraphs of which, for ready reference and convenience, are reproduced:

“6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under

section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code:

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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The word “suicide†in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation.

“Sui†means “self†and “cide†means “killingâ€, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit

it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former

law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types:

Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.

Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.

This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind.

However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it

was a crime for a person to commit suicide has been abrogated.

In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an

offence under section 309 of IPC.

“Abetmentâ€​ has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads as under:

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 places 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.

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:

Explanation 2 - 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp.

(3) SCC 731. In Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled are as under:-

1.......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 these reasons and being harassed I want to die

by burning.

The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of

the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of

harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.

The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-

Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband

uttered ""you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like"". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.

The Court in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of ""instigationâ€​. Para 20 reads as under:

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.

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of

the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided

by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires

an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into

such a position that he committed suicide.

5.3 Testing the factual matrix attending herein on the anvil of law laid down as above, it is evident that suicide note left behind by the deceased

Satyanarayan is to the effect that he was troubled by his wife (petitioner), his brother and brother's wife. In what manner, when and how was in

trouble has not been detailed in the suicide note. It is incomprehensible that a man of 30 years' of age will end his life merely because some of his

relatives are extending threats or uttering abuses or creating causes for mental stress. The reason/cause shown by the prosecution is not strong

enough, neither there appears to be live and proximate link between the cause alleged [the mental cruelty inflicted inter alia by the petitioner] and the

act of suicide. Consequently, the offence of abetment as defined u/s 107 IPC does not appear to be made out.

Consequently, in the background of the above discussion, allowing the impugned prosecution to proceed would result in continuing a prosecution

which can never end in conviction and therefore allowing the trial to proceed would lead to failure of justice.

6.1 Accordingly, revisional powers are invoked and the charge framed against the petitioner u/s 306 IPC deserves to be and is hereby quashed and the

petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC.

No cost.