Poonamchand Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11094 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 18 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 151 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           POONAMCHAND MEENA S/O CHATURBHUJ, AGED 70
                           YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
                           AMALAY PATHAR KI P.S. SHUJALPUR MANDI DIST.
                           SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VIJAYWARGIYA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           STATION SHUJALPUR MANDI DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           ( BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)


                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This present revision petition is filed by applicant against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by 4th ASJ, Shujalpur District Shajapur in ST No.48/2022, whereby, the charge of section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 12.6.2022 Rajesh was found dead nearby Railway track of Mugod Puliya and his body was cut from the rail. A suicide note was seized from his back pocket in which name of present applicant was mentioned on it and it was said that deceased was being tortured, abused and Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 19-07-2023 13:13:00

threatened by the applicant for the debts and because of this the deceased committed suicide. Accordingly FIR has been registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial court. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide order dated 21.12.2022 framed charge under section 306 of IPC against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence under section 306 of IPC can be made against the applicant on the basis of mere allegation of harassment. The Hon'ble Apex court also held in catena of judgments that a charge of an offence under section 306 IPC is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased when ingredients of abetment are not

attracted on the statement of deceased or witness. The deceased owed some money to the applicant, he would not encourage or provoke his debtor to commit suicide so as to lose his money. Hence he prays that impugned order be set aside and applicant be discharged from the charge under section 306 of IPC.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/State that prima facie charge for offence under Section 306 IPC has been framed against the applicant on the basis of the material available in the charge sheet. There is prima facie sufficient and ample evidence available on record, which directly connects the petitioner with the aforesaid offence, therefore, no interference is required.

5/ Both the parties heard at length and perused the case diary and other documents available on record.

6/ For making out an offence under Section 306 of IPC, one essential and requisite ingredient is 'abetment' by the accused to deceased to commit suicide.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 19-07-2023 13:13:00

Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-

"

306. Abetment to commit suicide -if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. As per definition given in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted by:

(i) Instigation a person to commit an offence; or (ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit; or

(iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. A person is said to "instigate" another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation of encouragement. The word 'instigate' means of goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act."

7/ Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State of Madras reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 1900, has held as under:-

This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)[ (2009) 16 SCC 605], had an occasion to deal with aspect of abetment. The Court dealt the dictionary meaning of word "instigation" and "goading".The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern in different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person is 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 cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 19-07-2023 13:13:00

convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

8/ In the case of Rajesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 9.7.2019 passed in CRR No.3155/2011, this Court has observed in para No.13 as under:-

13.............For framing charges under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the subject to commit suicide. It is 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."

9/ In the instant case, only allegation against the applicant is that applicant has demanded loan amount which was not returned to deceased, prior to incident deceased did not make any complaint against the applicant before any police station or any other authority. Although he left the suicidal note but from perusal of the suicidal note it appears that there is no instigation, provocation, suggestion or force for committing suicide. Except the statements of relatives of the deceased, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was being harassed by the applicant. Only omnibus allegation has been levelled against the applicant. It is also pertinent to note that the allegation levelled against the applicant does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. Hence in view of the settled law in the case of Rajesh (supra) this court is of the considered opinion that there is no mens rea to impel or incite the deceased to commit suicide.

10. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanju @ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 19-07-2023 13:13:00

Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and held as under :-

10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was compelled to do so.

11. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge Shujalpur District Shajapur in ST No. 48/2022 is hereby quashed. The applicant is discharged from the offence under section 306 of IPC and all other consequential proceedings relating to the aforesaid crime is hereby quashed. 12 Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and necessary compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 19-07-2023 13:13:00