Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- CRR No. 425/2021
Rahul and others vs. State of MP & Another
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Criminal Revision No. 425/2021
(1) Rahul S/o Heera Lal
(2) Heera Lal S/o Ramcharan Lal
(3) Smt. Mamta W/o Heera Lal ..... PETITIONERS
Versus
(1) State of MP
(2) Ranveer Dhanuk ..... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Avneesh Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 01.07.2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 29th July, 2021)
This Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 of CrPC has
been directed against the orders dated 13.01.2021 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.
50/2020, whereby the application under Section 227 of CrPC filed
on behalf of the petitioners for discharge from the offence
punishable under Section 306, 498A of IPC was rejected and
charges have been framed under the aforesaid sections.
(2) The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 12.2.2020 the
-( 2 )- CRR No. 425/2021
Rahul and others vs. State of MP & Another
complainant lodged FIR against the petitioners for offences under
Sections 306, 498A of IPC, at Crime No.353/2019 at Police
Station Thatipur, District Gwalior. The deceased committed
suicide by pouring kerosene. Thereafter merg was registered and
dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and statements of
family members of the deceased were also recorded. On the basis
of aforesaid FIR was lodged. Thereafter, after completion of
investigation charge sheet was filed. One application was filed
before the trial Court under Section 227 of CrPC, whereby prayer
for discharge from the offence was made. The aforesaid
application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.01.2021 by the
impugned order and charges were framed against the petitioners.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the present
petitioners as in MLC no injury was found on the body of the
deceased. The prosecution evidence itself establishes the fact that
the deceased committed suicide on account of dispute arose
relating to preparation of food. The petitioners have been falsely
roped in commission of offence of demand of dowry and cruelty
with the deceased. The petitioners had not abeted or instigated to
the deceased in any way. In the dying declaration, deceased had
specifically stated that she committed suicide due to cruel
behaviour of previous inlaws of the deceased, despite as a result of
afterthought the family members of the deceased have made false
allegation against the petitioners. Hence, prayed to allow the
revision and set aside the impugned order dated 13.1.2021,
whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under
Section 306, 498A of IPC.
-( 3 )- CRR No. 425/2021
Rahul and others vs. State of MP & Another
(4) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 have submitted that no illegality or perversity appears to
have been committed by the court below in framing the charge
against the petitioners. Hence, the revision is liable to be
dismissed.
(5) Considered the contentions raised by both the sides and also
perused the impugned order and documents available on record.
(6) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 1 SCC 750] has
explained the concept of abetment and existence of live &
proximate link as a pre-requisite to make out a charge under
Section 306 of IPC has been elaborately explained, relevant
paragraphs of which, for ready reference and convenience, are
reproduced as under :-
"10. "Abetment" has been defined under section
107 of IPC. We deem it appropriate to reproduce
section 107, which reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing - 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 2- which has been inserted along
with section 107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at
-( 4 )- CRR No. 425/2021
Rahul and others vs. State of MP & Another
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."
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in
Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp.
(3) SCC 731. In Mahendra Singh, the allegations
levelled are as under:-
"1.......My mother-in-law and husband and
sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife)
harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My
husband Mahendra wants to marry a second
time. He has illicit connections with my sister-
in-law. Because of these reasons and being
harassed I want to die by burning."
The court on aforementioned allegations came
to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement
of the deceased. According to the appellant, the
conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC
merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of
harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.
12. The learned counsel also placed reliance on
another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-Judge
bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case
of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband
and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free
to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like".
Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar
committed suicide. The Court in paragraph 20 has
examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads 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
-( 5 )- CRR No. 425/2021
Rahul and others vs. State of MP & Another
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."
17. 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 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.
(7) This Court on earlier occasion while relying upon the
aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court has taken a particular
view in CRR.763/2017 vide order dated 18.06.2018 extract of
which are reproduced below:-
"Mere hurling of abuses, intimidation, threats of
any kind are not strong enough causes to compel a
person of age of majority to end his or her life. More
strong and pressing reasons are required to be shown
by the prosecution to make out a case for abetment to
commit suicide. There should not only be a strong but
also live and proximate link between the cause and
suicide so as to sustain a charge of abetment to commit
suicide. This Court has, time and again, reiterated that
mere intimidation, insult or abuses are not good
enough causes for making out a case of abetment to
commit suicide."
(8) In the light of aforesaid position of law, the present case has
to be considered.
-( 6 )- CRR No. 425/2021
Rahul and others vs. State of MP & Another
(9) On perusal of the record it is apparent that charges under
Sections 498A and 306 of IPC have been framed against the
petitioners by impugned order. As per dying declaration of the
deceased, which is annexed with the petition as Document No.
5373/21, whereby transcript of the dying declaration has been
annexed, wherein deceased Seema had stated in her dying
declaration that she committed suicide on account of cruel
behaviour of her former inlaws. Her present husband, i.e., the
petitioner No.1, and her inlaws, who are parents of petitioner
No.1, had not committed any cruel behaviour with her. She also
stated that she herself committed suicide by setting her ablaze.
(10) Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of above discussion, I
am of the considered view that all important close and proximate
link between the cause and the suicide seems to be not only weak
rather missing in the present case and therefore, offence of
abetment to suicide is not made out against the present petitioners.
(11) In view of above, the impugned order dated
13.1.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge District
Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.50/2020 is hereby set
aside. The petitioners are discharged from the offences
under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(Yog) Judge.
YOGESH VERMA
2021.07.30
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
13:11:56 +05'30'
