Gajendra Shrivastav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6919 MP

                                                       1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 28 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2306 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    GAJENDRA SHRIVASTAV S/O SHRI RAJENDRA
                               SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT
                               O F GRAM JHADOLI BHITARWAR, DISGRICT
                               GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    TEJENDRA SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA
                               SHRIVATAVA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT
                               O F VILLAGE JHADOLI , BHITARWAR DIST.
                               GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    RAJENDRA SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI BHOLARAM
                               SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
                               RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHADOLI , BHITARWAR
                               DIST. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....APPELLANTS
                         (SHRI AYUSH SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                               POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE THANA
                               BHITARWAR, DISTRICT GWWALIOR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    ASHOK S/O SHRI KUBER SINGH JATAV RESIDENT
                               OF VILLAGE JHADOLI THANA BHITARWAR DIST.
                               GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI NITIN GOYAL- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1-
                         STATE AND SHRI ANANT KUMAR BANSAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
                         THE RESPONDENT NO.2- COMPLAINANT)

                               This appeal coming on for HEARING this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 5/3/2023
6:11:41 PM
                                                              2
                                                              ORDER

By way of this Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants seeking quashment of order of framing charges dated 12-12-2022 passed by Learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Case No.209 of 2022 whereby charges under Sections 306, 506, 294 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been framed against the appellants.

(2) It is contended by Learned Counsel for the appellants that no case is

made out against the appellants for abetment of deceased to commit suicide. There is no iota of evidence available in the charge sheet that the appellants had ever abetted deceased to commit suicide. If for the sake of arguments, appellants abused the deceased with dire consequences, he should have lodged a report at police station prior to alleged incident but he did not do so. The incident took place all of sudden over the dispute of making a ''medh'' in the agricultural field and there is no witness to the incident in order to prove that on this account, the appellants had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not by itself constitute an abetment of suicide and there should be a concrete evidence capable of suggesting that the appellants intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations in the complaint/FIR are false and the offence under Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes committed with the deceased is totally baseless and concocted. Hence, prayed for setting aside of impugned order of framing charges.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 5/3/2023 6:11:41 PM

(3) On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as complainant submitted that upon collecting the material facts and evidence by the investigating officer/ police authorities, the the Court below has rightly framed the charges for commission of aforesaid offences against the appellants. No interference at this stage is warranted and upon relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal & Another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146, it is prayed for dismissal of appeal.

(4) The decision in the matter of Praveen Pradhan (supra) as cited by Shri Bansal will not be helpful to complainant in the present case being distinguishable on facts of the case.

(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents available on record.

(6) The essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the

accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

(7) It is relevant to quote Section 107 IPC which defines abetment as under:-

''Section 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 5/3/2023 6:11:41 PM

any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place 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 1:- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at 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.

(8) Before offence under Section 306 can be proved, the presence of mens rea is of utmost importance. To hold a person guilty of abetment to commit suicide under the said provision, there has to be a clear mens rea on his part to instigate another to commit suicide. There should be objective to aggravate, incite or persuade the doing of the act by the other individual. The suicide must necessarily have been committed, also, a person may abet suicide by words or conduct, or both. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omissions or a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the other was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Words that a person speaks in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention of making anyone commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Some active role in the commission of suicide by the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 5/3/2023 6:11:41 PM

accused needs to be proved to hold him responsible for abetting it. Without action on the part of the accused person to instigate or aid the deceased committing suicide, the conviction is not sustainable.

(9) No doubt, that the word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618) to say that where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.

(10) Assuming without admitting the act of the appellants, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. The prosecution is bound to prove that the appellants had any mens rea. Unless the essential ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the appellants cannot be convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC.

(11) In the matter of M.Arjunan vs. The State of Tamilnadu reported in 2019 3 SCC 315, the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

''8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 5/3/2023 6:11:41 PM

The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.'' (12) So far as the offence under the Atrocities Act is concerned, mere hurling abuses without intention to insult or make casteist remarks will not become an offence under SC and ST Act. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that neither the appellants had insulted deceased with intention nor make any casteist remarks on deceased at the place of occurrence, which does not come within the purview of public place, therefore, offence under Atrocities Act is not made out against them.

(13) When the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed

in light of the legal principles extracted herein-above, neither any live-link nor any proximity between acts of the appellants and the act of committing suicide by the deceased is discernible. The requisite mens rea on part of the appellants is also lacking. It cannot be said that the appellants had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide on Railway Crossing Line by coming in front of running train. This Court is of the opinion that necessary ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the present appellants with the result that the criminal appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order of framing charges dated 12-12-2022 passed by Special Judge

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 5/3/2023 6:11:41 PM

(Atrocities), Gwalior in Special Sessions Case No.209 of 2022 is hereby set aside. As a consequence thereof, the appellants are discharged of all charges levelled against them for offences under Sections 306, 506, 294 of IPC & Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act A copy of this order be sent to concerned Court below as well as Police Station information and compliance.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 5/3/2023 6:11:41 PM