Sujeet Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner-Sujeet Singh has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding of Crime No.73/2015 registered at

Police Station, Gohparu, District Shahdol for offence under Sections 409 and 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and S.T. No. 179/2015 pending

before Special Judge under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Shahdol.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that MathuraKewat committed suicide by consuming pesticide. The postmortem report dated 05.10.2014 reveals

suspected poisoning. Viscera was sent for examination. Viscera report dated 05.01.2015 confirmed presence of zink phosphide. Merg was lodged.

Inquest was made. Subsequently, after F.I.R has been lodged at Crime No. 73/2015. During the investigation, itwas found that Mathura Kewat

applied for fund to mend his ""medh,"" through the Gram Panchayat. The same was sanctioned. But this amount was embezzled by the accused persons

including Hetram Yadav and Nalin Ram Yadav, Shiv Bihari Singh (Secretary), petitioner-Sujit Singh (Employment Assistant) Mate Ramasant,

Subengineer - Bhaiyalal Singh, Sarpanch- Kapasiya Bai and her husband Dhan Singh. In this regard Mathura Kewat filed a complaint before the

Collector against the culprits. The accused persons pressurized him to withdraw the complaint. Because of this harassment and pressurization,

Mathura Kewat committed suicide by consuming poison. Therefore, crime was registered.

On behalf of the petitioner-Sujeet Singh it is claimed that no offence is made out against him. He has been falsely implicated. He has not taken out

the amount. The alleged amount was withdrawn by the Secretary and the Sarpanch. Therefore, no offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C is made out

against the petitioner. As regarding offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C, it is claimed that the petitioner has not abetted or instigated the deceased

to commit suicide. It is argued that even if the entire evidence is taken to be true in its entirety, even then offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C is not

made out against the petitioner.

It is further argued that the petitioner hasnothing to do with the alleged crime or the alleged misappropriation of the funds. Neither the petitioner has

any say in the Panchayat nor he has any control over the officers of the Panchayat.

Per contra, learned G.A for the respondent/Stateopposing the contentions submits that money has been withdrawn in the name of construction of

medh"" through the Panchayat in the name of deceased Mathura Kewat. However, no such amount was paid to him and no such construction was

done but the amount was withdrawn and misappropriated by the accused persons. On the complaint of Mathura Kewat, Collector has initiated an

enquiry which was under process. Therefore, the accused persons pressurized the deceased to withdraw the complaint. The deceased was perturbed

and felt harassed and was left with no alternative except to commit suicide.

Perused the case diary. The statement of MunniKewat, the wife of deceased, indicates that because of the dispute regarding the sanction of fund

for ""medh""and, subsequent, complaint by her husband, he was tensed for about two months right from the incident. The husband of the Sarpanch,

namely, Dhan Singh, Shiv Bihari Singh, Secretary, Sujit Singh (petitioner-Assistant Employment), Mate Ramasant, Sub-engineer Bhaiyalal Singh were

insisting the deceased to withdraw the complaint. Because of this complaint, he was called for the inquiry. There was a meeting at the house of Puran

Kewat. In the meeting, it was again pressurized on the deceased to withdraw the complaint. He was also threatened that otherwise also, it will not be

good for him. Because of this harassment, he committed suicide. Puran Kewat, the elder brother of the deceased has also narrated the same in his

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecution witnesses have stated in the same line. Kumari Asha Kewat, the daughter of deceased, has

also stated that because of the continuous harassment by the accused persons including the petitioner- Sujeet Singh, the deceased was under tension

and he might have committed suicide. The petitioner is not are related to the incident of withdrawal of the amount which was sanctioned for ""medh

bandhan"". The statements of the accused persons also do not disclose how the petitioners has in any manner abetted, instigated, goaded or provoked

the deceased to commit suicide. The statements do not even disclose what is the harassment and how the petitioner has harassed the deceased and

what interest they have in the present case. No allegation is made against the present petitioner.

For the appreciation of the present case, it would beappropriate to understand the meaning of Section 306 of the I.P.C which reads as under:-

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.

It is also necessary to understand what actual constitute""abetment."" "" Abetment"" has been defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as

follows:-

Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing,who- First- Instigates any person to do that thing; orSecondlyEngages with one or

more other person or persons inany 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; orThirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1: A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes

or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

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 present petitioner does not have any direct connectionwith regard to the payment of the amount for ""medh bandhan."" In the case of

Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P., 2009 (2) MPLJ 147, the deceased committed suicide on account of playing dishonesty in a transaction of loan by the

petitioner. The act as alleged against the petitioner does not amount to instigation nor constitutes aid in commission of the suicide by the deceased.

Order framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 306/34, I.P.C was set aside.

In the present case, there is no prima facie evidence of themain ingredients of offence under Section 306 i.e abetment. ""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 accused to instigate or

aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Section 306 of the I.P.C 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/she committed suicide. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238.

In the touchstone of the cases mentioned above, if the presentcase is weighed and considered, it clearly indicates that the petitioners have not

abetted the commission the suicide and all ingredient of Section 107 of the I.P.C if scanned in proper perspective, it would be clear there is no

instigation or any illegal omission. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did anything by which it

could be said that he has abetted the deceased Mathura Kewat to commit suicide. Therefore, it is found that offence under Section 306 and 409 read

with Section 34 of I.P.C is not made out against the petitioner.Â

Consequently, this petition is allowed. S.T. No. 179/2015 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Shahdol so far it relates to the petitioner- Sujeet

Singh is concerned, is quashed.