Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2023

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                                1
                                   IN    THE     HIGH      COURT OF MADHYA                  PRADESH
                                                             AT INDORE
                                                            BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                     ON THE 14 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8219 of 2023

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   1.    PANKAJ S/O BASANT ROA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 42
                                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 113/7 NANDA
                                         NAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.    PRASHANT S/O VIKKY PATIL, AGED ABOUT 38
                                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 13/7,NANDA
                                         NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.    KAMAL S/O KRISHNAPARASAD SHUKLA, AGED
                                         ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                                         3,DURGA COLONY,MARIMATA SQUARE, INDORE
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   4.    RAJESH S/O CHOTTELAL MISHRA, AGED ABOUT
                                         45 YEARS,    OCCUPATION:  BUSINESS  174,
                                         SHRINAGAR,    P.S.MIG INDORE    (MADHYA
                                         PRADESH)

                                                                                           ....APPLICANTS
                                   (BY SHRI HARSHVARDHAN PATHAK-ADVOCATE)

                                   AND
                                   1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                         HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                         PARDESHIPURA DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
                                         PRADESH)

                                   2.    HANSA W/O LATE PRAKASH JAIN, AGED ABOUT
                                         54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 258/15
                                         JHANDA   CHOWK,NANDANAGAR       (MADHYA
                                         PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                                    (ms. HARSHLATA SONI, P.L. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)

                                   This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 15-Mar-23 10:51:10
AM
                                                                          2
                                   following:
                                                                          ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.564/2018 dated 02.11.2018 and final report No.604/2019 dated 07.10.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the present petitioners.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of suicide note of deceased as many as twenty persons have been made accused in the offence. In the suicide note, he had only mentioned the name of present petitioners for that he took loan from the petitioners and he was unable to repay the same and thereafter he committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance - sulphus. Apart from that there is no allegation against the present petitioners. It is further submitted that against the framing of charge under Section 306 read with 120-B of IPC is made out and the similarly placed co-accused persons namely; Umakant Goyal, Mukesh and Subhash have filed the Criminal Revision No.657/2021, Criminal Revision No.1940/2021 and Criminal Revision No.2669/2021 respectively.The said revision petitions have been allowed and the charges framed under Section 306 r/w 120-B of IPC has been set-aside. Similarly,

M.Cr.C.No. 4375/2023 filed by co-accused Gyarsilal and others has also been

allowed by order dated 23.02.2023.

3. Counsel for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts that the

allegations against the present petitioners are identical to the co-accused persons

who had filed the aforesaid criminal revisions. He submits that in a long suicide

note the deceased had mentioned the name of present petitioners only that the

deceased had taken loan from these persons only but he had made some

allegations against one Pankaj Chaiwala for harassment not against the present

petitioners.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 15-Mar-23 10:51:10 AM

4 Counsel for the petitioners submits that essential ingredients of offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC are not available in the present case. He has

referred few decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the purpose of disposal of

this case.

5. In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police

(2019) 3 SCC 315, the Apex Court held as follows:

7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306

I.P.C. 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, accused cannot be

convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.

8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1- letter and

the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to

establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the

instigation or abetment by the appellant- deceased. Having advanced

the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered

some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the

offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record

and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the

ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction

of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

6. In Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1994

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 15-Mar-23 10:51:10 AM

JLJ 758), while dealing with the ambit scope and applicability of section 107 0f

IPC, it has been held as under:-

"10. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal

Code abetment is constituted by:-

i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or

ii) engaging' in a conspiracy to commit it; or

iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit it

11. A person is said to 'instigate; another to an act, when he

actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of

language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express

solicitation, or of hints, insinuationor encouragement. The word

'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or

encourage to do an act. In the present case none of the accused goaded

or urged forward, provoked, incited or "urged orencouraged the

deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund or

repay the amount advanced by them to him. They never intended that

the deceased should commit suicide. On the other hand they wanted

the loan advanced by them to the deceased to be repaid by him. For

the said purpose, it was at least needed, if not essential, that Ramesh

Kumar Sadholia should live."

In the case of Dinesh vs. State of M.P. (MPWN 103) , while dealing

with similar facts, it has been held as follows:-

8 - If the deceased was being unduly pressurized to repay the loan

and he felt harassed then he ought to have taken recourse to law by

lodging a report against the petitioner and other persons that they are

threatening to kill him for nonpayment of loan. The deceased instead of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 15-Mar-23 10:51:10 AM

pursuing a legal remedy had committed suicide, obviously to put the

petitioner and his other tormentors into hot waters. Be that as it may, a

case for abetment to commit suicide is not at all made out against the

petitioner.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State

of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 has opined as under :-

Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the

deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of

instigation the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some

drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens

rea, therefore, is thenecessary concomitant of instigation. It is common

knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the

moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea it is in a fit of

anger and emotion.

8 In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra) the accused allegedly told the

deceased "to go and die" yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the

ingredient of "instigation". In the instant case, if story of the prosecution is read

and believed as such, it would be clear that the appellants did not in any manner

instigate the deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of "incitement" or

"instigation" on their behalf. Thus, Section 306 of the IPC is not attracted against

the appellants.

9 The ancillary question is whether their acts fall within the ambit of Section

306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010)

1 SCC 750, the Apex Court opined as under :-

17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or

intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 15-Mar-23 10:51:10 AM

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 this 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 this act must

have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he

committed suicide.

10. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overtact of accused

person must be of such a nature where the victim had no option but to commit

suicide. Even assuming that the appellants mounted pressure upon the deceased to

repay the Bank defalcated amount, this does not fall within the ambit of

"incitement" or "instigation".

11. 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 @ Sanjay

Singh Sengar 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 deceasedwill

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 15-Mar-23 10:51:10 AM

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.