Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anshul Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19469 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANSHUL RAGHUWANSHI S/O NARESH RAGHUWANSHI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O RAJKHEDA GANJBASODA,
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SUSHIL GOSWAMI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION
BASODA, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RUCHI GUPTA W/O SHRI RUPESH GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, GANJBASODA DISTT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered as Crime No.421/2019 at Police Station
Basoda City, Distt. Vidisha, for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and
S.T. No.21/2020 pending before Additional Sessions Judge Ganjbasoda arising
out of the same.
Brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2019, a report was lodged by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
prosecutrix at PS Ganj Basoda against Rupesh Gupta under Section 376(2) (n),
384 of IPC, ¾ of POCSO Act and 67-A of IT Act, and on the aforesaid
complaint, a criminal case was registered at crime No.384/2019. Thereafter,
Rupesh Gupta along with his family members left Ganj Basoda. Rupesh Gupta
committed suicide on 21.06.2019 by hanging at Mathura U.P.. Therefore, the
police registered a marg and during investigation a suicide note was found.
During investigation it was found that the deceased and prosecutrix were cousin
brother and sister, and had some illicit relations which was captured in a video
and went viral. Prosecutrix stated that deceased committed rape on her.
Afterwards, the father of the prosecutrix lodged the report at police station Ganj
Basoda by the assistance of accused Pawan Gupta and some other reputated
persons of the society due to which, deceased committed suicide on
21.06.2019. It is alleged that the act of present petitioner is that despite getting
Rs.50,000/- by co-accused Jakir Khan, he made viral the data of the mobile of
deceased Rupesh Gupta causing mental harassment to the deceased resulting
into suicide of Rupesh Gupta.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prima facie o n the
facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under
Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner/accused as there is no
evidence on record to show that the petitioner in any manner instigated, aided or
provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai
Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] and Sanju @ Sanjay
Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371] and contended that the
petitioner has not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
the petitioner has played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately
instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submission so advanced
by the petitioner by submitting that at this stage no interference is warranted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Section 306 of IPC reads as under:-
"Section 306. 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.'
The 'abetment' has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC, which reads
as under:-
"Section 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 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.
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.'ÂÂÂ
A s Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide
punishable, therefore, for making a person liable for an offence punishable
under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such
person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in
any of the 3 categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC and,
therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the
person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other persons
in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide or he must
intentionally act by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by
the deceased.
In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of MP, (2002) 5 SCC
371, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9 to 11 has observed as under:-
"9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC
731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section
306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the
deceased, which reads as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's
elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused
me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He
has illicit connections with my sister-inlaw. Because of these
reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under
section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the
appellant for an offence under section 306 is not sustainable
merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This
Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are
attracted on the statement of the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the
conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis
of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in
which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel
between the deceased and her husband and on the day of
occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said
that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter
she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
the accused this Court said:
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending
t h e consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the society to
which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty."
In case of Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, [2012 (1) JT
478], it is observed that offence of abetment by instigation depends upon
the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by
the person who has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under section 107 of the Code.
However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any
intention cannot be termed as instigation.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 while dealing with the term
'instigation' held as under :-
16. ... instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do ˜an
act™. To satisfy the requirement of
˜instigation™,
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes ˜instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the
accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course
of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which
case, an ˜instigation may have to be inferred. A word
uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute instigation™, a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the
doing of an act by the other by goading or ˜urging
forward™. The dictionary meaning of the word
˜goad™ is ˜a thing
that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or
reaction to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he
reacts....'
In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
'This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case
and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the
Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society
to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that that accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty'.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. reported in
(2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as under:-
'œ6. 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
œinstigate literally
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
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.'
I n Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I
SCC 750, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
'œabetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing
Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.ÂÂÂÂ" In order to convict a person
under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a
position that he commits suicide Also, reiterated, if it appears
to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to society to which victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce
a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to
commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for
basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide
should be found guilty.ÂÂÂ" Herein, deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under
Section 306 made out.ÂÂÂÂ" Hence,
appellant's conviction, held unsustainable'.
In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
(2010) 1 SCC 707, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
'œ12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the
view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without their 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, conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. 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.
1 4 . 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
Signature Not Verified
107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section
107 IPC.
15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we have
examined the provision of clause thirdly which provides that a
person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing when
he intentionally does or omits to do anything in order to aid the
commission of that thing. The Act further gives an idea as to
who would be intentionally aiding by any act of doing of that
thing when in Explanation 2 it is provided as follows:
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.'
1 6 . Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is
whether any of the aforesaid clauses namely firstly alongwith
explanation 1 or more particularly thirdly with Explanation 2
to Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
present case so as to bring the present case within the purview
of Section 306 IPC.'
The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :
'
'35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ((2009) 16 SCC 605 to contend
that the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC
is completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage
for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the
purposes of determining whether the offence under these
provisions has been committed or not. It is a tentative view that
the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed
t h e r e w i t h . No doubt that the word
œinstigate used in
Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC 618) to say that
where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words,
instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the
case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to
instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be
cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such
that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to
continue existence.''
Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another
person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language,
direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite,
urge or encourage to do an act.
In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in the FIR and
statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even then it cannot be said that
petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. At the most, there may
be an act of the petitioner of getting the FIR registered against the deceased, but
that does not mean that petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit
suicide.
Thus, considering the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie there is no material to
show that petitioner in any manner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
Accordingly, FIR registered as Crime No.421/2019 at Police Station Basoda,
Distt. Vidisha, for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC as well as
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petiitoner is
quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner and petitioner is discharged. This
petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ojha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/8/2023
6:22:02 PM
