Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rahul Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

                                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AT INDORE
                                      BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                      ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                    CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6 of 2023

  BETWEEN:-
  RAHUL S/O RADHESHYAM SONI
  AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION - BUSINESS,
  R/O: TATA NAGAR, RATLAM,
  DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                     .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)


  AND
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
  THROUGH P.S. DINDAYAL NAGAR,
  RATLAM (M.P.)
                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
  (BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 178 of 2023

  BETWEEN:-
  RAHUL SHARMA S/O ASHOK SHARA,
  AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION - BUSINESS,
  R/O: 151, PATEL COLONY GOSHALA ROAD,
  RATLAM, DISTT. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                     .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI HIMANSHU THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
                                             2



     AND
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     THROUGH P.S. DINDAYAL NAGAR,
     RATLAM (M.P.)
                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
     (BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These criminal revisions coming on for admission this day, the
court passed the following:


                                       ORDER

1. Both the applicants have preferred these criminal revisions under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No.163/2022, whereby charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam have been framed against them.

2. The facts in brief are that on 12.4.2022 a dead body of unknown person has been found by the police on railway track. After registering the Merg No.22/2022, enquiry has been held and during the Merg enquiry and the investigation, body was identified as a dead body of Pradeep Sharma S/o Ramchandra Sharma. During the investigation, it has been gathered that present applicants/accused along with other accused persons lended money to the deceased Pradeep and they demanded heavy interest (10 to 40%) from the deceased and due to the

mental and physical harassment given by the applicants and other co- accused, deceased Pradeep Sharma committed suicide. Prior to the suicide, deceased has sent message to his wife Pooja on Whatsapp regarding harassment and threats given by the accused persons. He also left a suicide note in which name of the present applicants were mentioned. Accordingly offence has been registered against them.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and trial court after hearing both the parties framed the charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam. Being aggrieved by framing of the aforesaid charges, applicants have preferred these revision petition.

4. Learned counsels for both the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous on facts and law. Name of the applicant Rahul Sharma was not mentioned in the suicide note. No allegation has been made against the applicants in the Dehati Nalishi, which was written by the father of the deceased. Ingredients of Section 107 and 306 of IPC are not attracted in the instant case. Mere demanding of outstanding money from the borrower would not constitute abetment. Deceased has named 13 persons in the suicidal note, whereas charge sheet has been filed against only two persons, who are the present applicants. There is no evidence to show that the applicants abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order by submitting that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges against the applicants and the applicants have harassed the deceased, due to which he has committed suicide. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Gurunath and another Vs. State of Maharashtra vide judgment dated 24.3.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.687/2016 and the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Anita & Another Vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 1.8.2023 passed in CRR No.2150/2022.

6. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the case diary and other documents.

7. Now the question for consideration arises, as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court with regard to framing the charge under Section 306 of IPC is improper, illegal or incorrect.

8. 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. 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."

9. 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 suicde, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to 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."

10. 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."

11. From perusal of the suicide note and Whatsapp Chat, it reveals that the deceased was being pressurized by the applicants to ensure payment of the outstanding money. Prior to the incident deceased neither made any written complaint against the applicants, nor filed any legal proceedings against them. There is nothing on record to establish that applicants abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

12. This court does not doubt the mental pressure that the deceased must have reeled under while committing suicide, but under the facts

and circumstances of the case, he also had other options before resorting to this extreme irreversible step, like raising a civil dispute or lodging a private complaint under Cr.P.C. Although, in every case of suicide, this can be argued that the deceased had other choices left open to him, but it depends on the nature of transaction and the material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and in the present case, the prosecution did not collect any documentary evidence regarding the money transaction between the applicants and the deceased. The ingredients of abetment are also missing in the instant case, despite the suicide note of the deceased. Non payment of money cannot be said to be an act of abetment of suicide.

13. 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.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants would amount to misuse of process of the court and would result in unnecessary wastage of valuable time of this Court and the other resources. The learned trial court while framing the charges has not considered the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter and has mechanically framed the charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants. Therefore, the charge under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicants cannot be sustained, but so far as the charge

under Section 4 of M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1937 is concerned, there is sufficient evidence to frame this charge.

15. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revisions are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2022 is hereby partly set aside and the charge with regard to offence under Section 306/34 IPC framed against the applicants Rahul Soni and Rahul Sharma is hereby quashed and the applicants are discharged from the charge under Section 306/34 of IPC.

16. It is made clear that the trial Court is free to proceed against the applicants for the trial of offence under Section 4 of M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1937, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-