Madhya Pradesh High Court
Musakan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- MCRC No.43108/21 & MCRC No.41358/21
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.43108/2021
Arjun s/o Shri Kumesh Kushwaha
Age 24, occupation- Pvt. Job,
R/o 54, Somnath Ki Juni chal,
Indore M.P
vs.
State of M.P through
PS Karahi, Khargone M.P
MCRC No.41358/2021
Muskan w/o Shubham Dhadge
Age 22 years, occupation housewife
R/o 191, Ambedkar Nagar, Indore M.P
vs.
State of M.P through police Karhi
district Khargone M.P
25.10.2021: (Indore):
Shri A.K.Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant Arjun.
Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant Muskan.
Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned GA for the respondent/State.
These are first applications filed under section 439 Cr.P.C
seeking bail in connection with crime no.228/21 registered at police
station Karahi, district Khargone for the offence punishable under
sections 306, 34 IPC and u/s 67 & 67A of the IT Act.
As per prosecution story, police station Karhi received an
information about the death of Shubham s/o Mukesh on 25.4.2021.
Accordingly, registered a Marg No.0333/21. Police reached to the
hospital, drawn a Naksha Panchayatnama and sent the dead body for
postmortem. A suicide note was recovered and the statement of the
witnesses were taken which revealed that marriage of deceased
Mukesh was held with Muskan Dhadge on 27.6.2020. After six
months the deceased came to know that Muskan was in affair with
Rahul Malawatkar and Arjun Kushwah. He made a contact with Rahul
who sent video clips, chatting etc. to the deceased. Thereafter Muskan
left the house of deceased and started living with her parents. She has
blocked his mobile because the deceased was continuously sending
messages and calling her. Shubham committed suicide by hanging
-2- MCRC No.43108/21 & MCRC No.41358/21
himself. Accordingly, police has registered an FIR u/s 306, 34 IPC &
67 & 67A of the IT Act against Mukesh Pawar, father of Muskan,
Jyothibai, mother of Muskan, Muskan, Mukesh Gole, Rahul
Malawatkar & Arjun Kushwah. The police has arrested all the accused
and recorded their statements u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The police
has recovered the mobile phone from Muskan and Rahul and sent to
the forensic lab. The suicide note has also been sent to the hand
writing expert. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has
been filed against all the accused on 9.9.2021 keeping investigation
pending in respect of FSL report and hand writing expert report.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Arjun submits that
he has never sent any video clip or chatting to the deceased in relation
with his wife Muskan. He had a frindship with Muskan before the
marriage and after the marriage he stopped all the contacts. The
offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out against him because he has not
instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The offence
under the IT Act is not made out against him.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Muskan submits
that the chatting available in the case diary are only one sided chatting
sent by the deceased to Muskan and one of the chatting revealed that
she had already blocked the contact number of the deceased as he was
sending and calling unnecessarily. Since last six months she was
residing with her parents. The past friendship or affair cannot be made
the basis for suicide of her husband. Even if he was not happy with the
legal remedies were available to him instead of committing suicide.
The offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out. The applicant has not made
viral any video message or chatting. The main allegation is against
Rahul who sent the video and messages to the deceased. No further
custodial interrogation is required in the matter as the charge sheet has
been filed.
Learned GA opposes the bail application.
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
-3- MCRC No.43108/21 & MCRC No.41358/21
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 other 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 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 investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.
The material collected by the police reveals that all the chat messages
were sent by the deceased to the wife and she blocked him. Although
in the messages he was making allegations against her but prima facie
that does not constitute abetment of suicide.
-4- MCRC No.43108/21 & MCRC No.41358/21
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, without
commenting on the merits of the case, the applications are allowed.
The applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the
trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present
before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the
conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
Before releasing the applicants from the custody the jail
authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule out
the possibility of Covid-19 infections and shall comply with the
direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.
1/2020.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
Digitally signed by HARI JUDGE
KUMAR C G NAIR
Date: 2021.10.26 17:28:10
+05'30'
hk/
