Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Devkabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- MCRC No.15994/21
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.15994/2021
Smt.Devkabai w/o Ramdasji vs. State of M.p
22.04.2021: (INDORE):
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned Panel Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Paresh Joshi, learned counsel for the objector.
This is the first application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C
seeking anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in
connection with Crime No.85/2021 registered at police station
Simrol, district Indore for the offence punishable under section
306/34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution story deceased Monica committed
suicide on 14.02.2021. She was immediately taken to the
hospital but died on 16.02.2021. After the death mother of the
deceased lodged an FIR in the police station alleging that son of
the applicant Hemraj used to force the deceased to make illicit
relation with him for which she had already complained to the
police station on 7.7.2020 which was registered as crime
No.200/2020 and despite that on 14.02.2021 when she was
returning from the beer factory he met her and forced to make
illicit relation with her and also destroyed her mobile phone. The
present applicant being the mother used to support Hemant for
the aforesaid act, therefore, she is equally responsible for the
untimely death of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid
information, FIR was registered against the applicant, Hemraj
and Ramdas. Hemraj and Ramdas have been arrested by the
police and now the police are trying to arrest the present
applicant, hence the present bail application.
-2- MCRC No.15994/21
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
The law in respect of offence under section 306 IPC is well
settled. To constitute an offence under section 306 IPC alone the
prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the suicide.
The prosecution has to show that the accused had provoked,
incited or induced the deceased to commit suicide. In the case of
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1
SCC 707 the Apex Court has held that in order to hold the
accused guilty under section 306 IPC the Court must examine
the facts and circumstances of the case in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no order alternative but to put an end to her
life. Para-12 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the
view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim
had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an
end to her life. It is also to be brone in mind that in cases
of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct
or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action promimate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the person
to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable.
10. In a recent case of Gurcharan Singh vs. The State of
Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.40/2011) decided on 01.10.2020
the Apex Court has held that to prove the offence of abetment, as
specified under section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible to determine the culpability. In
order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to
-3- MCRC No.15994/21
show that the accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of
that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The
ingredient of mens rea has to be visible and conspicuous.
The allegation against the applicant is that being the
mother she was supporting Hemraj for making illicit relation
with the deceased which is hard to believe and that too when
Hemraj is already married.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is
allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant
in connection with the aforesaid crime number, she shall be
released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/-- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order
shall be governed by the following conditions:
(a) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and
make herself available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required;
(b) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducment,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(d) she shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR C
hk/ G NAIR
Date: 2021.04.23 12:33:27 +05'30'
