Kapil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12547 MP

                                 - : 1 :-
                                                       M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT INDORE
                       BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                  ON THE 4th OF AUGUST, 2023

            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10385 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
KAPIL S/O SHRI SHIVNARAYAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GRAM MANASA, TEH. BADNAWAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                        .....APPLICANT
(SHRI C.L.YADAV, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ROHIT
SINGH SOLANKI APPEARED FOR THE APPLICANT.)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1.
   THR. P.S. SADALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SUNARSINGH S/O UMRAOSINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM BILAUDA, TEHSIL
   BADNAWAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AMIT RAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2/OBJECTOR.)


      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
                                ORDER

1. The applicant has filed the present petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR registered at Crime No. 16/2020 and charge u/s. 306 of the IPC framed on 13.1.2021 by First Additional

- : 2 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

Sessions Judge, Dhar.

2. As per the prosecution story, a 'Merg' No.0/2020 was recorded at the instance of Sunarsingh S/o. Umraosingh, the brother of the deceased. According to him, on 17.1.2020 Lakhan Singh Mandloi informed him that his brother Narayan Singh is hanging on an Arch of the Ramkrishna Temple of the village. He immediately reached there with Bagdiram. According to him, on 16.1.2020, Narayan Singh met with an accident with the present applicant and the applicant slapped him, because of this incident he committed suicide. The FIR was registered, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet has been filed.

3. Vide order dated 3.2.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4704/2020, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant has filed the present application seeking quashment of the FIR and the charge framed u/s. 306 of the IPC.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are absent in the present case as there is no mens rea. Even if the prosecution story is accepted as it is, offence u/s. 306 of IPC is not made out against the applicant as by slapping the deceased there cannot be any intention that would commit suicide. There is no allegation that he provoked or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He, thus, prays that the FIR and the charge framed against the applicant be quashed/set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/objector pray that this application be dismissed.

- : 3 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the material available on record.

6. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Others: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 964 has summarised the law in respect of the scope of sections 107 & 306 of the I.P.C., the relevant paragraphs are as under:-

"57. Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed:

"12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note."

58. The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and "cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide". Reversing the judgment of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

59. In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us (Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud J) in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Common Cause (supra), the provisions of Section 107 were explained with the following observations:

"458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC."

- : 4 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

60. More recently in M Arjunan v. State (represented by its Inspector of Police), a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC in the following observations:

"7. The essential ingredients of the 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/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

61. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms: "38. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

39. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of

- : 5 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

62. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows:

"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and 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 instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of

- : 6 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

63. In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus: "15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the 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 establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased."

64. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, dealt with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. A person serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8 August 2017. His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy work done from her husband. This resulted in him having to work from 10 AM to 10 PM and even at odd hours and on holidays. The specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed.

65. On the other hand, we must also notice the decision in Praveen Pradhan (supra) where a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section

- : 7 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

482 of the CrPC by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding, implicating an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The suicide note which was left behind by the deceased showed, as this Court observed, that "the appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased, who was compelled to indulge in wrongful practices at the workplace, which hurt his self-respect tremendously." The Court noted that the appellant always scolded the deceased and tried to always force the deceased to resign. Resultantly, the Court observed:

"19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon nonfulfillment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned judgment and order [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 420 of 2006, decided on 5-1-2012 (Utt)] of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly."

7. The Apex Court in catena of cases held that in order to punish under Section 306 of IPC for abatement. there must be mens rea in order to constitute abatement by instigation and there must be a direct inducement to do a culpable act as held by Apex Court in the case of

- : 8 :-

M.Cr.C. No.10385/2021

Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger Vs. State of M.P. reported (2002) 5 SCC 371.

8. From reading the FIR so also the statements of witnesses recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C. it is evident that the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are absent in the present case. There is no allegation against the applicant that he ever provoked or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The only allegation against the present applicant is that he slapped the deceased. The act of the present applicant cannot be said that he instigated or provoked or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no mens rea. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court, as above, the FIR as well as the charge u/s. 306 of the IPC framed against the applicant deserves to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No. 16/2020 Police Station Sadalpur, District Dhar as well as charge u/s. 306 of the IPC framed against the applicant vide order dated 13.1.2021 in Cr. Case No.38/2020 are hereby quashed.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2023.08.05 16:50:47 +05'30'