Kuldeep Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 98 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                             NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          Criminal Revision No. 477 of 2014

      Kuldeep Vaishnav, son of Pramod Vaishnav, aged about 28 years, resident
      of Ward No. 3, Chhuikhadan, Police Station and Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, Civil
      & Revenue District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

                                                                     ---- Applicant

                                      Versus

      State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station -
      Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

                                                                 ----Non-applicant



For Applicant         :     Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate
For Non-applicant     :     Mr. Shubham Verma, Panel Lawyer


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                                  Order On Board
07.01.2022

(1) The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the

order dated 29.3.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District

Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 23/2013 framing charge against him for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.09.2013 at 8.45 AM, informant

Mohan Ram informed the police of police station Chhuikhadan, District

Rajnandgaon that Chandresh Lodhi, who is resident of his village i.e. Jhuranadi,

has committed suicide by hanging himself at his own house. Based on that

information, merg report was lodged, inquest was prepared and post mortem was

conducted on the body of the deceased, spot map was prepared, alleged suicide

note was seized from the pocket of the shirt of the deceased, in which, name of the

applicant was mentioned for committing of suicide by the deceased. After merg

enquiry, on 17.9.2003, police lodged FIR No. 179/2013 against the applicant under

Section 306 of the IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the

applicant for the alleged crime.

(3) Subsequently, on 29.3.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh after

hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record framed the charge

against the applicant under Section 306 of the IPC, which has been assailed by the

applicant by way of filing instant criminal revision.

(4) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that for framing

charge under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required prima facie to establish

necessary ingredients against the applicant for abetment, as defined in Section 107

of the IPC, to commit suicide by the deceased, but in this case, if the contents of

FIR, alleged suicide note and the statements of the witnesses recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value, the offence under Section 306 IPC

is not made out against the applicant, because there is no evidence on record to

hold that deceased had been so harassed by the applicant, which compelled him to

take the extreme step of ending his life by committing suicide. He would next submit

that if the evidence available on record is accepted in toto, then also it could not be

sufficient to hold the applicant guilty under Section 306 of IPC, therefore, he would

submit that order of framing charge against the applicant is perverse and bad in law.

(5) Learned counsel for the State / non-applicant controverted the submissions

made by counsel for the applicant stating that suicide note of the deceased as well

as statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. state the

reason for committing suicide by the deceased. It is apparent from the record that

deceased wanted to open the hotel, therefore, he has sold some of his lands and at

the time of registry of the same, the applicant had brought documents/ patta parcha

(it seems land records & rin pustika of the deceased), which shows that land

records / patta parcha of the deceased was in possession of the applicant. He

further submits that witnesses have also stated in their statements recorded under

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that he (deceased) had also kept ₹ 4 lakhs with the

applicant and despite his request to return the said amount and patta parcha / record

of his land, applicant did not return the same to the deceased and due to this

harrassment and deceit committed by the applicant with him, he committed suicide by

hanging himself at his own house. Hence, learned counsel for the State submits that

learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing aforesaid charge against the

applicant, which does not call for any interference by this Court in the instant revision.

(6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of

criminal revision which contains copy of charge-sheet as well as original record of

the court below.

(7) Before discussing the evidence available on record, it seems necessary for

this Court to assess of the legal proposition consistently pronounced by the Apex

Court pertaining to the framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC, particularly,

abetement, as has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC, which reads thus :-

"Section 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 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 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 thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

(8) In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court

has considered the scope of Section 306 IPC and the ingredients which are essential for

abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word "instigation", it is held

in paragraph 20 as under:

"20. 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."

1 (2001) 9 SCC 618

(9) In the matter of State of Kerala & others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair & others 2,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed various authorities on the subject. Relevant

paragraph of the judgment reads thus :-

"11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.3 by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:-

"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107.

Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."

(10) In the matter of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal4, their Lordships of the Apex Court, while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C.

and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to say this:

"In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy,

2 AIR 2015 SC 3351 3 (2007) 10 SCC 797 4 AIR 2005 SC 1775

which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal."

(11) On the basis of aforesaid legal propositions, if this Court considers the

evidence available on record , particularly, alleged suicide note and evidence of the

witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that deceased was

intending to open hotel, therefore, he had sold some of his lands to Dheerendra

Kumar Sinha & Vijay Kumar Verma, whose, statements have been recorded by the

police under Section 161 of the Code, in which, they have clearly stated that at the

time of registry, applicant had brought the patta purcha / land records of the said

land of the deceased, but they have not stated in their statements that sale

consideration had been kept by the applicant.

(12) Alleged suicide note, which was said to be seized from pocket of the shirt of

deceased, reads as below :-

" esjh ekSr dh otg dqynhi oS".ko gS eSus tehu csp dj vkSj dqynhi ds uke jftVh dj 400000 pkj yk[k :i;s fn;k gwWa dqynhi oS ".ko dks mlus esjs lkFk /kks[kk fn;k vkSj esjk ijph Hkh j[kk gS dqynhi oS ".ko A

blfy, eSa viuk tku ns jgk gwWa pUnzs'k oekZ"

(13) Smt. Kaleshwari, who is wife of deceased Chandresh Verma, has stated in

her statement that before two days of the incident, her husband was worried and

upset and on being asked by her, he had told that applicant is not returning his

₹ 4 lakhs and patta / land record, which he had kept with him. Another witness

namely Ashok Sen has also stated in his statement that before 15-20 days or one

month deceased had told him the aforesaid facts. If their statements, which have

also been mentioned in the alleged suicide note, are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, even then, it does not prima facie show that applicant had

been repeatedly and persistently harrassing the deceased or he was doing so with

intention or to instigate the deceased, so that, he would commit suicide.

(14) For framing charge under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a mens rea to

impel or incite the deceased to commit suicide, but in the case in hand, on a plain

reading of the statements of the witnessess, it is difficult to hold that there had been

any abetment by the applicant. If we weigh the entire material available on record in

light of the aforesaid legal proposition, which have been reiterated several times by

the Courts, the facts revealed from first information report, suicide note and

statement of the witnesses at their face value and accepted them in toto, even then,

neither it constitute the offence alleged against the applicant, nor it is sufficient to

convict the applicant for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

(15) In view of the aforesaid discussions, the assessment of the material available

on record does not demonstrate any sufficient evidence or necessary contents for

framing charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant.

(16) As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussions, the present

petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated

29.03.2014 is hereby set aside and order of framing charge under Section 306 of

IPC against the applicant passed in Sessions Trial No. 23/2013 by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon is hereby quashed. Applicant

is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bonds be dishcharged.

(17) The criminal revision is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

Sd/-

(N.K.Chandravanshi) Judge

D/-