Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krushanpal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1135 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. KRUSHANPAL SINGH S/O OMKAR SINGH GHOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KASHTKARI
2. APAN SINGH S/O BABU SINGH GHOSHI, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
3. SANDEEP SINGH S/O BABU SINGH GHOSHI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
4. LAKHAN URF LAAKHAN SINGH S/O BALWAN
SINGH GHOSHI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
5. SUDESH URF SUDARSAN SINGH S/O RAJENDRA
SINGH GHOSHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
6. MUKESH SINGH S/O KEDARNATH GHOSHI, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
7. VEERENDRA SINGH S/O KEDARNATH GHOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KASTKARI
8. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O RATIRAM SINGH GHOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KASTKARI
9. RAJVEER SINGH S/O HARPAL SINGH GHOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KASTKARI
10. PALU SINGH RAMKRISHAN SINGH S/O JAGAT
SINGH GHOSHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
11. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O PRABHU SINGH GHOSHI,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
2
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KASTKARI
12. BHARAT SINGH S/O BABU SINGH GHOSHI, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KASTKARI
ALL R/O MAJHGUWAN, POLICE STATION-
BAHERIYA, DISTRICT-SAGAR(M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NARENDRA NIKHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DWARA POLICE
BAHERIYA JILA SAGAR M.P. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI - L.A.S.BAGHEL - DY.G.A. - FOR STATE )
Reserved on : 27/01/2023
Delivered on : 02/02/2023
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant revision, the applicants are questioning the legality, validity
and propriety of the order dated 09/03/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sagar, District Sagar in Sessions Case No.41/2022, whereby the Court
below has framed charge under Section 323, 294, 306/34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the applicants.
Counsel for the applicants submits that looking to the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, no case for the offence under Section 306
of IPC is made out and at the most offence could be under Sections 323 and
294 of IPC inasmuch as in marpeet took place between the applicants and
deceased, he received simple injuries, but there was no occasion for him to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
commit suicide and the applicants did not abet him to do so. He submits that
the Court below has committed illegality in framing offence under Section 306
of IPC against the applicants. The charge-sheet has been filed in which charge
of Section 306 of IPC is framed but no reasons have been assigned by the
Court as to how offence of Section 306 of IPC is made out against the
applicants. There is no material available on record to indicate that accused
persons have ever abeted the deceased for committing suicide and merely
because some marpeet took place between the parties does not mean that the
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are available and in absence of those
requirement offence of Section 306 of IPC is not made out. To substantiate his
submission, he has placed reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court reported
in 2002 (3) SCC 650 (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show
that the deceased was in great stress and depressed.
One plausible reason could be that the deceased was
without any work or avocation and at the same time
indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of
the wife-Smt.Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man.
Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that
such a note is not a handy work of a man with sound
mind and sense. Smt.Neelam Sengar, wife of the
deceased, made a statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C before Investigation Officer. She stated that the
deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not
doing any work. She also stated that on 26th July 1998
her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and
was abusing her and other members of the family. The
prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel
between the deceased and the appellant had taken place
on 25th July 1998 and if the deceased came back to the
house again on 26th July 1998, it cannot be said that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the
quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998.
Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances
independently, we are clearly of the view that the
ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant
case for an offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is in
the statement of the wife that the deceased always
remained in a drunkened condition. It is a common
knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to
debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the
deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected
with the quarrel that had ensued on 25th July 1998
where the appellant is stated to have used abusive
language. Taking the totality of materials on record and
facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it
will lead to irresistible conclusion that is the deceased
and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his
death. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The charge
sheet dated 2nd July 2001 framed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Sihora in Sessions Trial No.469 of
1998 for an offence under Section 306 IPC and the
order of the High Court under challenge are hereby
quashed. The appellant is on bail. His surety and bail
bond shall stand discharged.
The Supreme Court in case of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan
and another, reported in 2022(1) MPLJ (cri) SC 541 has also dealt with the
situation as to when offence of 306 is made out and considered this aspect in
following manner:-
22 What is required to constitute an alleged abetment
of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an
allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement
to the commission of offence of suicide and mere
allegations of harassment of the deceased by another
person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there
are allegations of such actions on the part of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
accused which compelled the commission of suicide.
Further, if the person committing suicide is
hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the
accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to
induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme
step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold
the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what
is required is an examination of every case on its
own facts and circumstances and keeping in
consideration the surrounding circumstances as well,
which may have bearing on the alleged action of the
accused and the psyche of the deceased.
40. In the absence of any material on record even,
prima-facie, in the FIR or statement of the
complainant, pointing out any such circumstances
showing any such act or intention that he intended to
bring about the suicide of his student, it would be
absurd to even think that the appellant had any
intention to place the deceased in such circumstances
that there was no option available to him except to
commit suicide.
41. In the absence of any specific allegation and
material of definite nature, not imaginary or
inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask
the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal
trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and the
appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer
great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on
absurd allegations of irrelevant nature.
I n contrast, counsel for State submits that the court below has rightly
registered the offence as there was necessity to frame such charge because the
deceased was humiliated and was left with no option but to commit suicide.
From the contents of FIR, it is clear that the body of the deceased was found
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
hanging in front of Khair Mata Mandir on a tree. The witnesses in their
statement have disclosed that there were some quarrel took place between the
parties, in which deceased was badly beaten by the applicants party and
thereafter he committed suicide by hanging himself. It is further submitted that
in the manner deceased was beaten i.e with the help of shoes and slaps that too
before the villagers, he had no other option but to commit suicide.
I have heard the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused
the record.
F r o m the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation, it is clear that no ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are available
but it was completely missing. The applicants have not abeted the deceased to
commit suicide. There was no abetment, therefore, offence of Section 306 of
IPC is not made out against the applicants.
Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and
prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of
IPC which reads as under:-
107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of
a thing, who
First. ÂÂÂ"Instigates any person to do that thing;
or
Secondly.ÂÂÂ"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 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.person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
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
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act.
T he scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation with
Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the Courts. In the case of
S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010 MPLJ online
Cri) (SC) 32 it was observed as under:-
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 the
Supreme 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 that act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide.
Under these circumstances, the Revision filed by the applicants is partly
allowed. The charge framed against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC is
hereby quashed. The order dated 09/03/2022 is accordingly modified to the
above extent only.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 2/3/2023
2:35:50 PM
