Smt. Sudha Patel and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioners/accused Sudha Patel and Gopal, is directed against the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No.100044/2016, whereby a charge under section 306 read with section 34 was framed against petitioners Gopal Patel and Sudha Patel.

The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Murlidhar was more than 70 years old. He lived in village Ankharkheda with his wife Janak Rani. About a year before the date of the incident, accused Gopal Patel had prepared ''Sapanna'' (a place where ladies bathe) in the village. Deceased Murlidhar used to pass by that Sapanna in regular course of his daily routine. Petitioner Sudha Patel used to bath in that Sapanna after taking off her clothes. She used to abuse those who passed by and used to level false allegations against them. About 3 or 4 days before the date of the incident, she had abused the deceased and had leveled allegation against him that he has voyeuristic tendencies; whereon, the deceased had reported the matter to Superintendent of Police. When the petitioners learnt about the same, they came to the house of deceased and threatened that they would beat up the deceased. Petitioner Gopal had created a scene and was shouting that if the deceased again passed by aforesaid road, they would kill him. Due to aforesaid persistent allegations, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous sulphas tablets on 18.10.2015.

Inviting attention of the Court to the various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that even if all allegations made against the petitioners are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, their act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioners were persistently leveling allegation of voyeurism against the deceased. Being a respectable old man, he was under severe mental stress. Due to aforesaid persistent conduct, the petitioners had succeeded in creating such a situation wherein, the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide.

A perusal of record reveals that victim has left no suicide note. The case of the prosecution is based entirely upon the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Janak Rani, wife of the deceased and other witnesses have repeated the prosecution story in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Thus, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the act of the petitioners, as brought-forth in the statement of witnesses, would constitute abetment of suicide.

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as 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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that: "To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it it 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 (Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) that:

"20. 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"..... (Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:

"The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred."

Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 3 SCC 699, it was observed that:

"The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life."

On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2005 (2) JLJ 224 observed as hereunder:

More so, in this case the accused has not 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 an instigation may have been inferred.

In the case at hand, it is established prima facie that petitioner Gopal had set up a Sapanna on the route frequented by deceased Murlidhar. Petitioner Sudha used to bath in that Sapanna in nude. As a result, the petitioner and his wife used to pick quarrel with the deceased and used to accuse him of voyeurism. Three or four days before the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between the parties wherein the petitioners had gone to the residence of the deceased and had abused and threatened him and had leveled filthy allegation against him.

In aforesaid circumstances, the possibility that the deceased had committed suicide due to persistent allegations and quarrel cannot be ruled out. However, it may be noted that the deceased was not in any manner related to the petitioners. The petitioners had no control over the life of the deceased. If the deceased had felt that he was wronged, he could have filed a civil or criminal action for defamation. In fact, he had already reported the matter to Superintendent of Police; however, instead of waiting for the result of his action, he impetuously committed suicide. The petitioners had no interest in seeing the deceased dead. In this background, it cannot be said that they had created such circumstances wherein the deceased had no option but to commit suicide. In fact, they had no reason to suspect that their act and conduct would lead to such disastrous consequences. It is clear that there was no instigation or incitement on the part of the petitioners to abet the commission of suicide. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the acts and conduct of the petitioners would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.

Thus, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against petitioners Sudha Patel and Gopal Patel under section 306 or 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge framed against them is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, the petitioners are discharged in respect of aforesaid offence.

In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Petitioners Sudha Patel and Gopal are discharged in respect of offence under section 306 or 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.