Madhya Pradesh High Court
Angad Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1714 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. ANGAD YADAV S/O SHRI ARJUN SINGH YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PATWARI
R/O PAWAR HOUSE KE PASS, NIWARI, DISTRICT
NIWARI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AZAD YADAV S/O VIDHYADAR YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNKNOWN
KODAR KHIRAK KATERAN RURAL JHANSI (U.P.)
(UTTAR PRADESH)
3. GEETA YADAV W/O ARJUN SINGH YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
GRAM JEWAR P.S. CHANDERA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI ARJUN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAMNATH
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMER GRAM JEWAR P.S. CHANDERA
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE AND SHRI MANAN
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION CHANDERA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH).
2. SMT. CHANDA YADAV W/O LATE SHRI ANSHUL
PRATAP SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION VILLAGE BHITORA
P.S. SAKRAR DISTRICT JHANSI (UTTAR
PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 07-05-2024
13:20:03
2
(BY SHRI PRAMOD CHOUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55813 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANGAD YADAV S/O SHRI ARJUN SINGH YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PATWARI PAWAR
HOUSE KE PASS NIWARI DISTRICT NIWARI (MADHYA
PRADESH).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE AND SHRI MANAN
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION CHANDERA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH).
2. SMT. CHANDA YADAV D/O SHRI KUNWARLAL
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BHITORA PS SAKRAR DISTRICT JHANSI (UTTAR
PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD CHOUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE AND SHRI R.S. PATEL - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner Angad Yadav has filed petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (M.Cr.C. No.55813/2023) for quashing of FIR registered
at Crime No. 183/2023 by Police Station Chandera, District Tikamgarh (M.P.)
dated 05.10.2023 for committing offences under Sections 306 and 120-B of
Indian Penal Code.
2 . After filing of charge-sheet, trial Court has framed charges against
petitioners Angad Yadav, Azad Yadav, Geeta Yadav and Arjun Yadav,
therefore, they have filed criminal revision (CRR No. 1714/2024) against order
dated 03.02.2024 framing charges under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code
read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per prosecution
case, one Chanda Yadav, who is wife of deceased Anshul Yadav, lodged FIR.
According to her, parents of deceased Anshul namely Arjun and Geeta, his
elder brother Angad and maternal uncle namely Azad harassed the deceased to
such an extent that he has no choice but to commit suicide. Anshul Yadav had
interest in joint family property. Said property was in possession of his parents
and elder brother Angad. Deceased was repeatedly asking for partition of said
property, but petitioners Arjun, Geeta, Angad and Azad were putting pressure
on him not to partition the said property. Parents of deceased did not use to
give him money. Therefore, there was fight between them and deceased.
Deceased on 16.04.2023 asked for money which was received from selling of
crops. There was quarrel and altercation between parties from 16.04.2023 to
19.04.2023. On 19.04.2023, deceased asked money for tobacco from her
mother Geetabai. She refused to give any money. There was altercation between
them and deceased is said to have committed suicide by hanging himself in
Bedawala house. Parents of deceased and relatives have given statement to
police that wife Chanda Devi was harassing the deceased and she picked up a
fight with parents on 05.02.2021 and non cognizable report was lodged 90/21.
Deceased was harassed therefore, he also lodged a non cognizable report
against his wife, which was registered NCR No. 62 of 2023. Deceased
committed suicide due to harassment from wife. Police during investigation
examined the entire facts and reached to a conclusion that deceased had
patched up his differences with his wife. He went to her house and brought her
alongwith him to stay in his family. On night of 19.04.2023, wife Chanda Yadav
made food for all family members. Husband was not eating food, therefore, she
consoled her husband and gave him food. On said date, she slept alongwith him
on terrace. Aforesaid facts show that deceased was not enraged or depressed
or perturbed by action of his wife, but on the contrary, police found that
deceased has committed suicide as he his parents and elder brother, who was
Patwari, refused to do partition of the joint family property. No money received
from selling of crops was given to him when he asked for the same. In these
circumstances, police has registered offences under Sections 306 and 120-B of
IPC.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in case of M. Arjunan vs State represented by its Inspector of
Police, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315. He relied on para 7 of said judgment,
which is quoted as under :
"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 o f 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."
Further reliance is placed on judgment passed by Apex Court in case of
V.P. Singh etc. vs State of Punjab and others , reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1999. He placed reliance on para 13 to 16 of said judgment, which
is quoted as under :
"13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has relied inter
alia on the judgment of this Court in "S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan and Anr." reported as (2010) 12 SCC 190
more specifically paragraph 24 & 25. The Court examined the
matter in the conspectus of the prevalent legal position in the
Country. While suicide by itself is not an offence but an attempt
to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC. The Court
thereafter turned to the definition of abetment under Section 107
of IPC 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.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing."
14. In the conspectus of the different judgments referred to in that
case it was opined that the words "instigation" and "goading"
should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. While each person's suicidability pattern is
different from others, each person has his own idea of self-esteem
and self-respect and therefore it was difficult to lay down any
straightjacket formula in dealing with such cases. In this context
paragraph 25 reads as under :-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act 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 that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide."
15. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment in Sanju
Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2002
(5) SCC 371 to contend that the opinion of this Court is that
even where a person stated that his death would not make any
difference or that he could go and die. That itself would not
amount to an instigation in absence of mens rea.
16. One other judgment referred before us is in the case of State
of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. reported as 2019
(10) SCC 188 in which earlier judgment in Ramesh Kumar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh reported as (2001) 9 SCC 618 cited for
approval setting out the consideration of the scope of section 306
and ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in
Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word instigation it was
observed in paragraph 20 of Ramesh Kumar Case (Supra) as
under:
"20. 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. The present one is not a case
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 been
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation."
In view of aforesaid laws laid down by Apex Court and facts and
circumstances of the case, counsel appearing for petitioners made a prayer for
quashing of FIR and also charges framed by the trial Court.
5. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State as well as
counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant opposed the prayer and
submitted that deceased was harassed to such an extent that he was left with no
other alternative but to commit suicide. Petitioner Angad Yadav is in powerful
position. He is Patwari and in a government job. He was not allowing partition
o f property. Parents as well as maternal uncle were putting pressure on
deceased not to do partition. Not only this, he was not given any money for day
to day expenses. Even for eating tobacco (त बाकू), he has to beg his mother for
money. He was harassed to such an extent that he committed suicide. In this
case, no error has been committed by the trial Court in framing charges and
there is no abuse of process of law or failure of justice in registering of FIR
against petitioners under Section 306 of IPC. In these circumstances, petitions
be dismissed.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties.
7. Perused the judgments passed by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases.
On careful perusal of judgments passed by Apex Court, it is found that it was
held that suicidability pattern is different in respect of different persons. Each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect and it is difficult to lay
down a straight-jacket formula dealing with such cases. It was further held that
act of accused must be direct and active which lead the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and that act must be intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide. Reference was also given to a
case reported from State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh
Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, wherein accused
stated that death would not make any difference and he could go and die. Later
on, said person committed suicide. In said case also, it was held by Apex
Court that uttering words itself would not amount to instigation in absence of
mens rea. In case of State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 188 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported as (2001) 9 SCC 618, it was held that 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 consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. In case of Ramesh Kumar
(supra), Court held that accused had by his act or omission or continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide, in which case of instigation may have
been inferred. A word uttered in fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. In case of
Sanju (supra), Apex Court held that there was no proximity of suicide with
wife telling husband "to go and die" and as deceased has committed suicide
after two days.
8. Considering aforesaid case laws of Apex Court and facts and
circumstances of the case, it is found that there was serious altercations
between deceased Anshul Yadav, his parents and brother regarding selling of
crops on 16.04.2023. Altercation continued for a period of 3 days i.e. till
19.04.2023. Deceased was continuously in disturbed mental condition for non
payment of any money to him and non partition of property. On 19.04.2023, he
asked her mother for some money to have tobacco (त बाकू). Mother refused to
give him any money and he became so disturbed that he went in Bedawala
house and committed suicide by hanging. Aforesaid circumstances show that
even for day to day expenses such as eating tobacco, which is a common habit
in villages, deceased was dependent on her mother. He was consistently asking
for his share but no money was being given to him. He was continuously under
pressure for last few years from his parents, elder brother and maternal uncle
Azad. He was married man and require decent expenses to meet out his
demands. After asking of money and altercation, deceased immediately
committed suicide by going to Bedawala house and hanged himself. There is
clear proximity between altercation of deceased with his mother. There was
serious altercation between parents and deceased for last 3 days i.e. between
16.04.2023 to 19.04.2023.
9 . Aforesaid facts clearly show that there was proximity of altercation
and suicide of the deceased and further parents and elder brother and uncle had
not left any other option for the deceased but to commit suicide as he does not
have money for even small expenses. Petitioner Angad Yadav alongwith parents
and maternal uncle put pressure on deceased for not partitioning the property
and also not giving him any money for day to day expenses. He was a married
man and completely dependent upon them for money. In these circumstances, it
is clear that continuous altercation and harassment of deceased has led to his
suicide.
10. In these circumstances, case of petitioners is not covered by
judgment which is passed in case of M Arjunan (supra). Case in hand prima
facie amounts to abetment of suicide by petitioners and other relatives. In these
circumstances, petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(M.Cr.C. No. 55813/2023) and criminal revision under Section 397/401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure (CRR No. 1714/2024) are dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
vkt
