Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1206 MP

                                                     -1-


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT I N D O R E
                                                     BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                          ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                        CRIMINAL REVISION No. 780 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                              MANOJ S/O RAMPUJAN DUBEY, AGED ABOUT
                              46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O 474, B-
                           1.
                              SILICON CITY, RAU, INDORE (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)
                              MADHAV KUMAR SINGH S/O RAJ KUMAR
                              SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           2.
                              SERVICE R/O 37/38, SHAHI NATURE COLONY,
                              RAU, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                              GHANSHYAM SINGH S/O SHITLA PRATAP
                              SINGH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           3. SERVICE, R/O - MP NAGAR, IN FRONT OF DB
                              MALL,   III  FLOOR,   BHOPAL (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)
                              AJAY KUMAR S/O RAMULAL, AGED ABOUT 54
                              YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O - 792,
                           4. KARTAR KRUPA BHAWAN, KHATIWAL TANK,
                              INDORE,  DISTRICT   INDORE   (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)
                                                                            .....PETITIONERS
                           (SHRI VINAY SARAF, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI
                           SIDDHARTH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                           HOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S. RAJGARH (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)
                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI AJAY GUPTA, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:59:25
                                                                       -2-


                           RESPONDENT/STATE.)
                           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
                           following:

                                                                        ORDER

Applicants have filed this present Criminal Revision under Section 397 against the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, District Dhar in S.T. No.74/2019 whereby the charges under Section 306/34 have been framed against them.

The prosecution story in short is as under:

2. On 24.02.2019, at about 00.30 Police Station Rajgarh received information from Manoj Kumar Sharma (Revenue) Sub-Inspector that Pankaj Sharma aged about 45 years working as an agent of the company Sahara India has committed suicide by hanging himself in front of Dalpura Ram Mandir, his dead body is lying on the table and his brother Krishnakant is present there. The said information was recorded under Section 174 under U.D. No.8/2019. The spot Sub-Inspector Rajgarh Police Station reached the spot got identified the dead body and searched it, he found a one and a half pages suicide note written in the pocket of the trouser of deceased. The contents of the suicide note revealed that he was subjected to torture and abetment by these applicants, depositors and money landers. The lash panchnama was drawn and the dead body was sent to the autopsy to know the reasons for the death. As per the opinion of the doctor, the death was found due to hanging.

3. After the autopsy the dead body was handed over to the family

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

members of the deceased. The statement of the witnesses was recorded which revealed that the deceased was working as an Agent in Sahara India and he used to collect money from the depositors and give it to the Sahar company for keeping the amount in a Fix Deposit for a certain period for which he used to get the commission. In the suicide note as well as the witnesses disclosed that the depositors were pressurizing him to return their amount after maturity but these applicants were not returning the amount to the depositors and rather pressurizing the deceased to bring more and more business to the company. He has further disclosed in the suicide note that he met with an accident on 30.03.2018 for which he spent Rs.4,00,000,/- to Rs.5,00,000/- by taking a loan from the market and in order to repay the loan he demanded his commission money to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- but these applicants/ officers of the company were not giving proper reply to return the aforesaid amount, rather they threatened him to terminate the agency and would bring him to the road therefore, he had no option but to commit suicide on 23.02.2019. Applicants were called upon by police for interrogation, but they approached this Court and obtained anticipatory bail. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed thereafter the charges under Section 306 alternate 306/34 IPC have been framed against all the accused hence, this present petition before this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ingredient of Section 306 IPC are missing in this case. It is further submitted that there was some delay in payment from the company's side due to the stay granted by the Apex Court on the sale and purchase

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

of the properties of Sahara India despite that the company made a payment of Rs.16,25,245/- as commission to the deceased from January 2018 to January 2019. During this period the family members of the deceased had also been paid an amount of Rs.33,87,791/-, 18,21,396/-, and 15,66,395/- between the period of January 2018 to January 2019 as their policed attained maturity. In these circumstances, in total, the amount of Rs.4,04,73,693/- was paid against the maturity of as many as 1543 policies. It is further submitted that as per the contents of a suicide note, the deceased took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the market at the heavy interest rate and he was not in a position to repay the loan, that might be a reason for committing suicide as he could not sustain the pressure of the money-lenders.

5. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for the applicants cited a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v/s State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628 in which in similar facts and circumstances the conviction under Section 306 and 107 of IPC has been quashed. The Apex Court has considered and appreciated the employer-employee relationship and held that it is absurd to even think that a superior officer would intend to bring about the suicide of his driver, therefore, abets the offence. It has also been held that merely because a person has grudge against the superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge honestly feeling that he was wrong and it would still not be a proper allegation basing the charge under Section 306 of IPC. Learned Senior Counsel cited the judgment passed by coordinate benches in which after relying on the principle of Supreme Court judgment the charge under Section 306 has been

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

quashed.

6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that reading the suicide note and the statement of the witnesses revealed that the deceased was harassed to the extent that he had no option but to commit suicide, therefore, these applicants have rightly been charged with abetment. The rest of the materials are liable to be considered by the Trial Court produced by way of evidence hence the revision must be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsels for both parties.

7. As per the contents of the suicide note it is not in dispute that the deceased was an authorized agent of Sahara India, he used to get commission on deposits given to the company. According to him, his commission was not timely paid to him and the depositors were demanding money from him but the company was slow in returning his amount, therefore, he was unable to sustain the pressure of depositors. He noted that he met with an accident on 30.03.2018 and for treatment, he took Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- from the market and since the company is not returning his commission charges, he had no option but to commit suicide. Even if all these facts are taken as it as to prosecute the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. material available in the charge sheet is not sufficient.

8. The Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan (supra) said that in order to bring out the offence under Section 306 of IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 106 of 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 and there is no

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

allegation in the note that these applicants intentionally withhold the amount payable to the depositors to abet the petitioner to commit suicide. As per Section 107 of IPC there are the following requirements firstly, there should be an instigation to any person to do that thing and secondly, engages with one or more person in a conspiracy for doing that thing thirdly, intentional aid by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete the abetment as a crime there has to be a provocation by a person as defined under Section 107 of IPC. This Court in Criminal Revision No.3155/2019 has examined the scope of Section 107 of IPC in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court:

5. Before parting with the evidence, apt would be the assessment of the legal proposition consistently pronounced in this regard. Section 107 IPC reads thus :-

"107. 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 any conspiracy for the doing of thatthing, 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 willful 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 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."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Ors. AIR 2015 SC 3351 has discussed various authorities on the subject. Relevant paras of the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Justice Deepak Misra reads thus:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (AIR 2007 SC 2457) by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect: "Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107.

Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."

7. In Analendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (AIR 2010 SC 512) dealing with expression of abetment the Court observed:-

"The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107, IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107, IPC. Section 109, IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107, IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107, IPC."

8. In Netai Dutta (AIR 2005 SC 1775) (supra) , a two- Judge Bench,

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107, I.P.C. and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to say this:

"In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal."

9. In M. Mohan (2011) 3 SCC 626 : AIR 2011 SC 1238 (supra), while dealing with the abetment, the Court has observed thus:

"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, Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mensrea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

10. In a recent judgment passed in Gurcharan Singh v. State of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

Punjab AIR 2017 SC 74 the Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of provision of Section 306 of IPC are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide. If there is no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof, the materials on record do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative and no such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries, it could be said that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 of IPC have remained unproved and thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

11. In this regard, we can further refer Jalam vs. State of M.P. 2014 CRI.L.J. 360, Ajay Patodia vs. State of M.P. 2004 CRI.L.J. 197, Surendra Pathak vs. State of M.P. 2016 CRI.L.J. 762, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998.

12. Reverting back to the case in hand, I have gone through the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25

evidence collected during investigation and submitted with the charge-sheet.

13. All these statements; if taken in toto even then they do not constitute offence of abetment to commit suicide. No evidence is there to show that the intention of the petitioners in demanding their money back was to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Neither there is any evidence of persistent pressure, harassment or torture from the petitioner's side nor any evidence that they have ever prompted the deceased in such a manner that one may apprehend that in case of nonrefund of money, they will kill him or will harm him in such a manner that to avoid such condition a common prudent man may take a decision to self extinction. There is no cogent evidence that either by words or by any action, the petitioners have forced the deceased to commit suicide. Demand of money credited does not amount to instigate committing suicide. For framing charge under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the subject to commit suicide. It also requires an active or direct act, which lead the deceased to commit suicide and this act must push the deceased into such a position that he sees no option except to annihilate his own life.

In view of the above, the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 are missing in this case. Resultantly, the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, District Dhar in S.T. No.74/2019 whereby the charges under Section 306/34 have been framed against them are quashed and the proceedings of Session Trial S.T. No. 74/2019 are also quashed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Divyansh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 23-01-2023 16:59:25