Gujarat High Court
Sureshji Ratnaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 9 February, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21201 of 2021
================================================================
SURESHJI RATNAJI THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
DHARMIK R BAROT(8785) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 09/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This application has been filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection
with the First Information Report being C.R.
No.11206033210229 of 2021 registered with Unjha Police
Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
allegations against the present applicant are that to the
effect that the deceased was demanding Rs.2,00,000/-
with regard to sale of Car. It is stated the deceased has
named the applicant in the suicide note and as per the
suicide note, the deceased had purchased one car and he
was to make the payment for the said car. As per the
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
suicide note, one - Manoj had facilitated the deceased
for purchasing the said Car and according to the suicide
note, no one was ready to help the deceased. It is also
stated in the suicide note that even the applicant was not
helping the deceased in making the payment of
Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that all the people
involved were in the business of sale of old cars and
there were continuous transactions and dealings regarding
the car amount. Thus, it is submitted for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- the deceased would not have committed
suicide. The suicide note also reflects that as no one was
ready to help the deceased in the financial crisis, he took
the ultimate step, and thus, it is submitted that non-
payment of Rs.2,00,000/- would not bring the case under
the definition of instigation for commission of suicide
under Sections 306 and 117 of the Indian Penal Code. It
was, therefore, prayed that the present application may
be allowed and the applicant herein may be released on
regular bail.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as
per the suicide note, as the present applicant failed to
make payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, the deceased committed
suicide. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may
be exercised in favour of the applicant.
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused
the material on record. Merely because the applicant did
not pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, would not bring
the act as a case for instigation for commission of
suicide. It appears that there were business dealings
between the applicant and deceased. The applicant
would not even have the knowledge that merely because
of his failure to pay the amount, the deceased could have
committed suicide. The said act of non-payment of the
amount would not prima-facie fall under the definition of
instigation of commission of suicide.
5. In Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
reported in 2010 CRI. L.J. 2110, the Apex Court while
examining the ingredients under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code referring to the word 'suicide' explains
it in the following terms :-
"7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in
the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and
import is well known and requires no explanation.
'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', 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."
In Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra), the Apex Court while
referring to the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (11) SCALE 24,
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
observed in Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 as under :-
"19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an
occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The
court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word
"instigation" and "goading". The court opined that
there should be intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each
person's suicidability pattern is different from the
others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem
and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay
down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with
such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
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. 21. 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."
6. In Ude Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019
SC 4570, referring to the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 9 SCC 618, it has been
observed in Paragraph 14.2, reproducing the observations
of the said case as under :-
"34. The word ''abetment'' has not been explained
in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is
pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those
who abet the commission of suicide of other.
Whether the person has abetted the commission of
suicide of another or not is to be gathered from
facts and circumstances of each case and to be
found out by continuous conduct of the accused,
involving his mental element. xxx xxx xxx 36. The
word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.
A person is said to instigate another person when
he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by
any means or language, direct or indirect, whether
it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints,
insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in
(express) words or maybe by (implied) conduct.
37. The word "urge forwards" means to advise or
try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to
make a person to move more quickly in the
particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing
such person. Therefore, a person instigating another
has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing
of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment,
it must be shown that the accused kept on urging
or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the
deceased reacted. A casual remark or something
said in routine or usual conversation should not be
construed or misunderstood as "abetment".
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as
also the ratio laid down in the above judgments, this
Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be
exercised in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present
application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection with the First
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
Information Report being C.R. No.11206033210229 of
2021 registered with Unjha Police Station, Mehsana on
executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the
conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within
a week;
[d] not leave India without prior permission of the
concerned trial court;
[e] furnish the present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of
execution of the bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
8. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating
to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the applicant
only if he is not required in connection with any other
offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above
conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned
will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in
the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower
R/CR.MA/21201/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order
to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email
forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
CAROLINE
