Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Prabhu on 6 August, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1 CRA-2196-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2196 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PRABHU
Appearance:
Shri Amit Raval, learned GA for the appellant.
Shri Vijendra Pawar, learned counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated
13.09.2022 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Agar, district Shajapur in
S.T.No.18/2021 whereby the respondent/accused has been convicted under
section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year eight months
with fine of Rs.2000/- with further default stipulation and acquitted under
section 306 of the IPC.
2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal under section
306 IPC, State has filed this appeal on the ground that there is sufficient
evidence against the respondent for conviction under section 306 IPC but the
trial court has wrongly acquitted him. Counsel for the appellant submits that
the prosecution witnesses PW/1 Lalji, PW/2 Durgabai and PW/5 Ajay have
supported the prosecution case and deposed that the respondent has abetted
deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court
2 CRA-2196-2023
is perverse and requires to be modified.
3. Counsel for the respondent on the contrary has opposed the
contention of the appellant and submits that the judgment passed by the trial
court regarding acquittal is in accordance with law and procedure. The
respondent has already suffered one year eight months jail sentence and there
is no sufficient evidence against the respondent under section 306 of the IPC,
hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Considering the contentions raised in the appeal memo, the
question arises for consideration is whether the trial court has erred in
acquitting the respondent under section 306 of the IPC.
6. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:
306. Abetment of 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.''
7. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C which reads as
under :-
"107. Abetment of a thing.--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.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar
3 CRA-2196-2023
vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as under:-
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a
thing if he firstly, 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."
Further, in para 12 of the judgment, it is held as under:
"12. ..... 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 the
necessary concomitant of instigation. ...."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 needs mentioned here, in
which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that abetment 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. 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.
4 CRA-2196-2023
Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under
Section 306 made out. Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable".
10. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and
Another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73 , the Supreme Court has held that "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."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 648 has held that "a word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the 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
5 CRA-2196-2023
commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing
a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should
be found guilty."
12. So considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses in the light
of the view adopted by the apex Court in above mentioned citations it is
clear that deceased committed suicide due to domestic dispute and there is no
active act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide
by the deceased. So conviction cannot be based on such statement given by
the prosecution witnesses. The intention of the legislature is clear that in
order to convict a persons 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 commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such position that she commits
suicide. But in the present case, the dispute arose between the accused and
deceased due to domestic reason and the accused assaulted the deceased after
provoking the wife this act does not come under section 107 of the IPC.
13. So in view of the above, the finding of the trial court regarding
acquittal of the respondent u/s 306 IPC is not warranting any interference.
That apart when two views are possible in this regard, it is well settled that if
trial court has passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused persons
on the ground of proper appreciation of evidence, hence there is no
requirement of interference by the appellate court even when appellate court
has another conclusion. It is also well established proposition of law that
when two views are possible then the view taken by the trial court be
6 CRA-2196-2023
accepted. In the case of M.S Narayan Menon vs. State of Kerala - (2006) 6
SCC 39, apex Court has held that where two views are possible appellate
court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court
below. Likewise in the citation of Budh Singh vs. State of UP (2006) 9 SCC
731 it was again held by the apex Court that the view of the trial court having
regard to the fact and circumstances of the case was a possible view which
should not have been interfered with by the High Court.
14. Also, the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
another case law of Gopal Singh and others vs State of M.P., (2010) 6 SCC
407, in same context, is also worth referable as under;-
"It is now well settled that if the trial court's judgment is well based on the
evidence and the conclusion drawn in favour of the accused was possible
thereof, the High Court would not be justified in interfering on the premise that
a different view could also be taken and though the High Court was entitled to
reappraise the evidence there should be substantial and compelling reasons for
setting aside an acquittal order and making one of conviction."
18. In light of aforesaid ratio decided and so also considering the
testimony of prosecution witnesses and above citation, in the considered
opinion of this Court, trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent under
section 306 IPC. So the impugned judgment does not warrant any
interference which is hereby affirmed.
19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
7 CRA-2196-2023
hk/
