Tanmoy Mandal @ Tanmay Mondal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3507 Jhar

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Criminal Revision No.260 of 2020
                                         ---

Tanmoy Mandal @ Tanmay Mondal ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Adv.

            For the State                 : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.
                                         ---

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---

06/21.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed in S.T. Case No.119 of 2019 arising out of Bindapathar P.S. Case No.43 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.509 of 2018, registered for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the FIR has been lodged on 18.06.2018, alleging therein, this revisionist has love affairs with the deceased-daughter of the informant and upon the revisionist's instigation she has committed suicide. It has further been alleged that after commission of the suicide, this accused had come to the house of the deceased and took away the mobile phone and other materials of the daughter of the informant. The police after investigating the crime, have found the same to be true and accordingly charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to which cognizance has been taken.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shabbir Hussain Vs.

The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

"In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide."

Further, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in [2010 (4) East Criminal Cases 1 (SC)]. The paragraph-28 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

"28. 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 which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

Further, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu & Ors. reported in [2019 (4) JLJR]. The paragraph nos.11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements recorded during the investigation. Even according to the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on

record, we are also of the view that the present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents.

There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr. [1995 Supp. (3) SCC] this Court while considering utterances like "to go and die" during the quarrel between husband and wife, uttered by husband held that utterances of such words are not direct cause for committing suicide. In such circumstances, in the aforesaid judgment this Court held that Sessions Judge erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial and quashed the proceedings.

12. In the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] this Court has considered the scope of Section 306 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."

13. Similarly in the judgment in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 9 SCC 371] when any quarrel which has taken place between husband and wife in which husband has stated to have told the deceased "to go and die", this Court has held that the suicide committed two days thereafter was not proximate to the quarrel though the deceased was named in the suicide note and that the suicide was not the direct result of quarrel when the appellant used

abusive language and told the deceased to go and die. Judgments referred above support the case of respondents, except stating that on 05.03.2004 when the deceased went to the premises of first respondent, his parents who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 addressed her as a call-girl. At the same time by applying the judgments referred above we are of the view that such material is not sufficient to proceed with the trial by framing charge of offence under Section 306/34 IPC. It is also clear from the material that there was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide.

Referring to the above judgments, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that for charging under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code there must be positive material/action in the commission of suicide. In the absence of any material suggesting positive action on the part of the revisionist, charging him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is bad and he has to face unnecessary trial which cannot result into conviction.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that prima facie the case has to be seen on the basis of materials available on record. Relevancy- irrelevancy, admissibility-inadmissibility, sufficiency-insufficiency of the material available on record cannot be looked into by the Court. Even, prima facie case, on strong suspicion, based on materials available on record is sufficient for charging the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Further, the argument of the revisionist is not tenable simply on the ground that his contention totally negates the circumstantial evidence available on record. Circumstantial evidence may also be basis for charging the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the present case, the relation of the accused with the victim- girl and taking away the relevant material and the evidence from the house of the deceased is circumstances pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.

6. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that for formation of offence under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code, abetment is a necessary ingredient. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the abovementioned judgments has spelt that "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."

Thus, instigation is a mental process and sometimes direct evidence is not available as the relationship between two parties is not disclosed elsewhere.

In the present case, the learned trial court has looked into the materials available on record and after considering the same, has come to the finding that both the parties were in deep relationship and they were talking on regular basis rather on daily basis, which is also suggested by the Call Details Report. Further, the post incident conduct of the petitioner in taking out the mobile, some papers and diary and some other materials from the house of the deceased is also relevant factum to be considered while framing the said charge.

7. In view of above discussion and considering the materials available on record, I don't find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.02.2020, whereby the court below has exercised its jurisdiction after considering the materials available on record to the frame the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as it is also supported by the police report.

8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.260 of 2020 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-