Gaurav Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7720 MP

                                    1
 IN     THE          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                         ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2023
                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1953 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
GAURAV AGRAWAL S/O SHRI RAVI SHANKAR ALIAS
SHIV SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O
BADAGAON, GATE KE BAHAR, JHANSI (UTTAR
PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION UNIVERSITY DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

      Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

I.A. No. 8069 of 2023, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of applicant for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision.

As per office report, revision petition is barred by 335 days in filing the revision.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing revision petition is condoned.

This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the revisionist against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in S.T. No.78/2020

by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior whereby charges under Section 306 of IPC has been framed.

Brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.2019 at 5.07 pm, Sub-Inspector who had gone for the proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C of the dead body of Prateek Agrawal and during inquiry, inspection of place of incident, a suicide note, intoxicating substance and other evidences were discovered. The death of Prateek Agrawal seems to have been caused due to consumption of some intoxicating substance. It is alleged that in the suicide note which was found from the place of incident as well as from the statements of the mother of

deceased namely, Abha Agrawal, wife Prachi and brother Rahul, whereby it was alleged that the applicant was regularly harassing the deceased and had abated the suicide and as such on finding the prima facie offence to have been made out under Section 306 of IPC, the FIR was lodged. It was also noted that on the information so received by Manager of Hotel Mascot on 10.09.2019 checked in the room no.206 and stayed there till 4 pm, when he was tried to contacted by the staff through landline which had gone unattended, on which the local police was called and room was opened and his dead body was recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prima facie on 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 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.

As 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 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.

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 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.

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, order dated 20.02.2020 passed by learned 14 th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior is hereby set-aside and framing charges against the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC is quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner and petitioner is discharged.

Revision is accordingly allowed.

                                                                  (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                                                                           JUDGE
    Adnan
ADNAN    Digitally signed by ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI
         DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
         PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT



HUSAIN
         OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
         2.5.4.20=43f3ff8f444225f9f0d9c30497105ab
         b80e91238ac53cf96a7b005e256158275,
         postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
         serialNumber=922E3DC382E0127257CE0DC




ANSARI
         C4E29CD410E0BF39FAB6AA6DCB81675BB2
         AF2DFCF, cn=ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI
         Date: 2023.05.12 17:59:58 +05'30'