Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kavita W/O Rohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58918 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KAVITA W/O ROHIT W/O RAJKUMAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
1.
R/O 123, SAINIK COLONY, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
PANKAJ @ SAPNA YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 123 SAINIK
2.
COLONY DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
LALA @ SARITA YADAV, R/O 123 SAINIK COLONY, DISTRICT RATLAM
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAHUL S/O RAJKUMAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 123,
4.
SAINIK COLONY, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI V.A.KATKANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION SUJALPUR MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY NAGPAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR.
BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of FIR registered at crime
No.483/2022 under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
police station Shujalpur Mandi, District Shajapur (M.P.).
Facts of the case in short are as under:
02. The marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with the
deceased Rohit on 11.12.2019 under Hindu customs and rituals. The
applicant No.1 made a written complaint against her husband Rohit and
other relatives that she has been subjected to cruelty for demand of
dowry. The said complaint was registered at FIR No.618/2022 at police
station Deendayal Nagar, District Ratlam under Section 498-A, 294,
323, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
After registration of the said FIR, Rohit committed suicide in his house
after leaving a suicide note. On 23.08.2022 after the said unfortunate
incident, Ranjeet Bhaneriya, Head Constable registered an FIR under
Section 306 and 34 of IPC against the applicants. The contents of FIR
are as under:
मैं का . प्र. आर. 123 रं जजत भानेररया थाना शुजालपुर मंडी
पर पदस्थn हूँ । जदनां क 23.08.2022 को मृतक रोजित यादव जपता
राधामोिन यादव उम्र 32 साल जनवासी गॉंधी कॉलोनी शु जालपु र
मण्डीोो द्वारा अपने घर के कमरे में फॉंसी लगाकर आत्म ित्याोी करने पर
थाना िाजा पर मगग क्रं. 26/22 धारा 174 जाफौ का पंजजबद्ध जकया
गया मगग जां च के दौरान मृतक रोजित यादव के शव का जनरीक्षण कर
पंचायतनामा लाश लेख जकया गया तथा मृतक का पी.एम. कराया
गया। बाद मृतक रोजित यादव के कमरे से एक सुसाईड नोट जमला
जजसमें मृतक ने लेख जकया िै क कजवता में बस आपसे जवनती कर
रिा हूँ मेरे और मेरे पररवार के ऊपर जो केस जकया िै , वो सरासर
गलत िै । सुसाइड नोट जप्ति कर जॉंच िे तु डराफ्ट तै यार कर क्यू डी
शाखा भोपाल जमा कराया गया। मृतक रोजित यादव के पररजन जपता
राधामोिन यादव , माता सरस्वकती यादव तथा भाई ररतेश यादव व
मनोज यादव के कथन लेख जकए गए जजन्होकने अपने कथनो में मृतक
रोजित यादव को उसके ससुराल पक्ष के साला राहुल यादव , बडी
साली पंकज उफग सपना यादव व छोटी साली लला उफग सररता
यादव, मुूँि बोला मामा ससुर मिे श शमाग व पत्नी कजवता यादव द्वारा
मृतक रोजित यादव को मानजसक रूप से बहुत प्रताजडत करना
बताया जजस कारण से जदनां क 23.08.2022 को मृतक रोजित यादव
ने अपने कमरे में छत के कुंदे में चादर लपे टकर फॉंसी लगाकर
आत्मपित्यात करना बताने पर कथन लेख कर मगग सदर में श्रीमान
एडीपीओ मिोदय संजय कुमार मोरे अनुभाग शुजालपुर जजला
शाजापुर का अजभमत जलया गया जजनके द्वारा अपने अजभमत में
अपराध पंजजबद्ध करना उजचत िोगा लेख करने पर प्रकरण की
डायरी श्रीमान थाना प्रभारी मिोदय के समक्ष पेश की गई जजनके
द्वारा आदे जशत करने पर आरोपीगण राहुल यादव , पंकज उफग सपना
यादव, लला उफग सररता यादव , मिे श शमाग व कजवता यादव के
जवरूद्ध अपराध धारा 306 , 34 भादवी पाया जाने से पंजजबद्ध जकया
जाता िै । नकल मगग इं टीमेशन िस्बयजेल िै -सूचनाकताग राधामोिन
यादव जपता रामलाल यादव उमग्र 63 साल जनवासी गॉंधी कॉलोनी
शुजालपुर मण्डीोा मो . न. 8989402666 ने िमराि अपने भजतजे शुभम
यादव के थाना िाजजर आकर मौप्तखक सूचना जदया जक उक्ता बताए
पते पर रिता हूँ बीएसएनएल से ररटायर हूँ । आज सुबि करीब
0707.30 बजे जक बाज िै जक मेरे लडके रोजित के साले राहुल यादव
जनवासी रतलाम का मेरे पास मो. न . 6264472768 से फोन आया
और बोला जक अपने लडके रोजित को समझा लो निीं तो तुम्हा4रे
घरवालों के सबके िाथ पॉव तोड दें गे इसके बाद मेरा लडका रोजित
उम्र 29 साल जो जक तीसरी मंजजल में अपने कमरे में सो रिा था
उसको उठाने गया तो निीं उठा दरवाजा निीं खोला। मैं जचल्लािया तो
पररवार के सभी लोग आ गए। इसके बाद िमने जमलकर दरवाजा
तोडा दे खा तो मेरे लडके रोजित यादव ने छत से लगे हुए कडे पर
चादर से गले में फॉंसी लगा रखी थी जकसी ने पु जलस को सू चना जदया
तो पुजलस मौके पर पहुं च गई। जजनके सामने उसको उतारा दे खा तो
मेरे लडके रोजित की मृत्यु िो चुकी थी। रोजित के मोबाईल पर
अक्स र उसका साला राहुल यादव , मामा ससुर , बडी व छोटी साली
का फोन आता था और उसको धमकाते थे मुझे शंका िै जक उनकी
धमजकयों से िी परे शान िोकर मेरे लडके रोजित यादन ने फॉंसी
लगाकर आत्म ित्याोो की िै । सू चनाकताग िू कायग वािी की जाये ।
03. The present applicants have filed the present petition
seeking quashment of the FIR that neither in the suicide note nor in the
FIR there is allegation about instigation or abetment to Rohit for
committing suicide. As per allegations in the FIR, the father of the
deceased received a phone call from Rahul Yadav threatening him about
the conduct of Rohit. Thereafter, he tried to open the door of the room in
which Rohit was sleeping and when the door was not opening it was
broke and found that Rohit was hanging from the ceiling, therefore,
Rohit did not receive any call from Rahul, there is no material that Rohit
received information about the registration of FIR against him and
family members, therefore, it cannot be said that these applicants have
instigated or abetted Rohit for committing suicide. The applicant No.1
availed the remedy available under the law by lodging an FIR but before
any action could be taken by police in the FIR, Rohit committed suicide,
therefore, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are missing in this case.
04. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Others: 2020
SCC OnLine SC 964 has summarized 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."
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
ofsuicide. 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 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
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."
05. 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 abetment by instigation and there must be a direct
inducement to do a culpable act as held by Apex Court in the case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger Vs. State of M.P. reported (2002) 5 SCC
06. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed. The FIR registered at
Crime No.483/2022 under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 at Police Station-Shujalpur Mandi, District Shajapur (M.P.) and
consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No.483/2022 are hereby
quashed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
