Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anju Raidas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 7th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 329 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. ANJU RAIDAS, WIFE OF LATE SUNIL KUMAR
RAIDAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BY
OCCUPATION-HOUSEWIFE.
2. KAMLESH MAHOBIA, SON OF LAXMAN
SINGH, MAHOBIA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, BY
OCCUPATION - SERVICE, MPEB, MAINTENANCE
WORKER.
3. POONAM MAHOBIA, D/O LAXMAN SINGH
MAHOBIA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BY
OCCUPATION - SERVICE, COMPUTER
OPERATOR, VICTORIA HOSPITAL, JABALPUR.
[ALL RESIDENTS OF 766, AAGA CHOWK, BEHIND
DEPOT NO. 1, LORDGANJ, JABALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (M.P.).
... APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE - ASSISTED BY
SHRI ESHAAN DATT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION-GHAMAPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MP).
2. RAJU RAIDAS, S/O SHRI MANSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, H.NO. 1030, NEAR WATER
TANK, SIDDH BABA, THANA - GHAMAPUR,
JABALPUR (MP).
...RESPONDENTS
(NO. 1 BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
2
(NO.2 BY SHRI PRAHLAD CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 15.03.2024
Pronounced on : 07.05.2024
................................................................................................................................................
This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:
ORDER
This Criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants
assailing the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by XXV Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.41/21 (State of M.P. Vs.
Anju Raidas and others) framing charge against them under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that considering the story
of prosecution and the material collected by them, offence of 306 is not
made out against the applicants because the required ingredients of the
offence are missing and as such charge framed by the trial Court by
order impugned is liable to be set aside.
3. As per the story of the prosecution, an FIR was lodged at Police
Station Ghamapur, District Jabalpur vide Crime No.939/2020 for the
offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the
deceased committed suicide by hanging himself and left a suicide note.
The suicide note reads as under:-
ÞeSa lquhy dqekj jSnkl vius iwjs gks'kksa gkckl esa ;s c;ku ns
jgk gwa fd esjh iRuh vUtw jSnkl vkSj ml ds ?kj okyks us
ekufld :i ls cgqr cgqr ijs'kku djrs Fks esjh iRuh vUtw
esjs vkSj esjs ?kj okyks ds f[kykQ >wBh fjiksVZ djds ge
lcdks tsy fHktokus dh /kedh nsrh vkSj iqyhl okys Hkh
budh gh lqurs gSa tSls dh lkjs dkuwu bu vkSjrksa ds fy, gh
gSa gekjs fy;s dksbZ dkuwu ugha gSA deys'k tks dh esjk lkyk
gS oks rks ges xksyh ekj nsus dh /kedh nsrk gSA vkSj vkt Hkh
cxSj fdlh ckr ds eq>s dejs esa cUn dj ds Hkkx xbZ blls
igys Hkh og nks ckj dj pwdh gS vkSj vkt Hkh gekjs lkFk
ogh gqvk bu yksxksa us gj txg esjh vkSj esjs ?kj okyksa dh
csTrh cnukeh djrs Fks bu yksxksa us bruk ijs'kku fd;k gS fd
eSa ejus dks etcwj gks x;k gwa eq>s esjs eka cki ls rd vyx
dj fn;k vkSj mldh cM+h cgu tks fd foDVksfj;k esa tkWc
djrh gSA oks rks dHkh gekjs f[kykQ >wBh fjiksVZ cukrh gS rks
dHkh Fkkus Hkh >wBh xokgh nsrh gSA eSa lHkh ls gkFk tksM+ dj
fcUrh djrk gwWa fd tks Hkh fjiksVZ djrh gS Fkkus esa og lc >wB
gSA esjh iRuh vkt dgrs gS fd eSa u'kk djrk gwWa vkSj xyr
nckb;ksa dk lsou djrk gwWa muh iqfyl okyks ds lkeus dgrh
gS vkSj esjs ejus ds ckn iksLVekVZe esa irk py tk;sxk fd
og fdruk >wB cksyrh gSA esjs ejus ds ckn tks Hkh vax gks
fdlh Hkh t:jr ean dks ns fn;k tk;sA
lquhy dqekj jSnklß
4. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that before registration of
instant offence, the wife namely Anju Raidas (Applicant No.1) lodged
an FIR against her husband (the deceased) in the year 2018 saying that
she was physically assaulted by her husband and her in-laws and as
such, offence got registered against them at Police Station Ghamapur
under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime
No.0056/2018. He has submitted that from the recital of suicide note, it
is clear that offence of 306 is not made out against the present applicants
for the reason that there was no abetment on the part of the applicants.
He has submitted that for constituting offence under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code, the material ingredients of 107 are required to be
present in the case. He has further submitted that it is not a case in
which the applicants left no other option before the deceased but to
commit suicide and, therefore, he submitted that the trial Court without
appreciating the material ingredients of the alternative offence, framed
the charge which is liable to be set aside.
5. Shri Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other
hand has submitted that from the recital of the suicide note and also the
statement of witnesses, it is evident that the deceased was being
harassed by the applicants. The wife (applicant No.1) used to harass the
deceased not only mentally but physically too. He was being insulted
like anything and in the conduct of applicant No.1 the other applicants
also used to support her and as such, the deceased had no option but to
commit suicide. He has therefore, submitted that this revision deserves
to be dismissed.
6. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the complainant
has also submitted that the level of harassment was too high and the
deceased had no other option to get rid of that situation which ultimately
compelled him to commit suicide. He has submitted that the trial Court
has not committed any error in framing charge against the applicants
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that in every
case of suicide, abetment is not required. According to them, if situation
is so, leaving no other alternative and any other option before the
deceased but to commit suicide and if suicide is committed, the offence
of 306 is made out. The present case is not a case of abetment but it is a
case where no other option was left before the deceased but to commit
suicide and as such the impugned order framing charge under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants does not call for any
interference and the revision being without any substance deserves to be
dismissed.
8. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the case diary.
9. From perusal of the contents of the suicide note alleged against
the present applicants, it is clear that it does not contain any form of
abetment by the present applicants but it reveals from the said suicide
note that the deceased was being harassed by his wife and as such he
had left with no other option but to commit suicide. As far as offence
under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, the material ingredients of
Section 306 of IPC is required to be seen, which 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."
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the material ingredient of
offence is abetment for commission of suicide. The abetment is defined
is Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing
of a thing, who-
First.- Instigates any person to do the 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."
10. From the contents of the suicide note and the statement of
witnesses, it is clear that the material ingredients of Section 107 of IPC
are not available in the present case and, therefore, this case is of other
aspect, leaving no option before the person but to commit suicide.
11. As per the provision of Section 306 of IPC and the legal
pronouncement in respect of this offence, it is clear that the said offence
can be formed in two situations, which are as under:-
(i) There must be an abetment by the accused abetting
deceased to commit suicide, meaning thereby the
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC must be available.
(ii) Even though if ingredients of Section 107 of IPC
are not available, but the accused created such
atmosphere that the deceased had no other option but
to commit suicide.
12. As per the existing facts and circumstances, the present case does
not fall under the first category wherein this Court has examined
whether ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are available or not but it falls
within the second category in which this Court has to see whether the
accused have created such an atmosphere and situation before the
deceased leaving no other option before him but to commit suicide.
13. It is not a case in which the wife-applicant No.1 can be considered
to be an aggressive partner because on the basis of a report made by her
in the year 2018 to the police, an offence got registered against the
deceased and his family members under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34
of the IPC vide Crime No. 0056/2018 at Police Station Ghamapur which
reveals that there was a dispute between husband and wife and it is also
clear that they often used to fight. As per the recital of suicide note, the
applicant No.1-wife and her family members were mentally harassing
the deceased and used to give threat that he (deceased) and his family
members would be implicated in a false case. It is also mentioned in the
suicide note that the wife without any reason locked the deceased in the
room and went away. It is also mentioned in the suicide note that
because of the wife there was separation between the deceased and his
parents and he was residing separately from his parents. These were the
situations facing by the deceased as per the suicide note which
compelled him to commit suicide and now it has to be seen as to
whether those situations can be considered to be an atmosphere leaving
no other option and alternative before the deceased but to commit
suicide.
14. In my opinion, the deceased husband might be a hypersensitive
person and without availing the other alternative options committed
suicide. If he was being harassed, he could have made complaint to the
police, but no material has been placed by the prosecution to establish
that despite approaching the police the deceased did not get any
response from them. If there was no understanding between the husband
and wife, the husband could have gone for the legal remedy of divorce
but that remedy had also not been availed by him. On the contrary, the
wife made complaint to the police upon which offence got registered
against the husband and his family members. Thus, it can be presumed
that the husband-deceased has not availed any other alternative and
found himself helpless to face the situation. I can understand a situation
in which the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide when a
college going girl being harassed by roadside romeos while going
college. She informed her parents and they contacted the parents of the
said boys but nothing was done. Accordingly, the parents of the girl
approached the police but police also did nothing and no action was
taken against the said boys and their activities were continuing and even
increasing day-by-day which created the situation difficult for the girl
even to come out from her house and ultimately finding no option she
committed suicide. I can understand that this situation created second
category for forming an offence under Section 306 of IPC because an
atmosphere created before the girl leaving no option before her but to
commit suicide, however so far as present case is concerned, it cannot
be said that the deceased had no other option under the existing
circumstances but to commit suicide.
15. The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 has
almost considered the situation leaving no other option but to commit
suicide and taking note of the circumstances opined that the said
situation was not so under which if suicide is committed by a person, an
offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out:-
21. In the present case, the charge against the appellant
is that he along with other two accused "in furtherance
of common intention", mentally tortured Jitendra
Sharma (the deceased) and abetted him to commit
suicide by the said act of mental torture. It is trite that
words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a
quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to
have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on the
prosecution to show the circumstances which
compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to
bring an end to his life.
22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note,
extracted above, statements recorded by the police
during the course of investigation, tend to show that on
account of business transactions with the accused,
including the appellant herein, the deceased was put
under tremendous pressure to do something which he
was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears
that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices
was such that the deceased was left with no other
option except to end his life and therefore, clause
Firstly of Section 107 IPC was attracted.
23. Briefly dealing with the material available on
record, in the order directing framing of charge against
the appellant, the learned trial court has observed as
under:
"In the present case the evidence shows threatening
given to the deceased. One witness called Kartar Singh
says that C.K. Chopra was heard saying to the
deceased that the deceased had become dishonest
because he was refusing to sign a paper in which the
share in some joint property was shown to be 10%. On
another occasion Chopra was heard by this witness to
say that Chopra would ruin the deceased if he did not
give up his claim for 25% and did not agree to accept
10%. Witness Padam Bahadur has stated inter alia that
he overheard Jahur and Mahavir telling the deceased
that Chopra had asked them to say that this was the
last opportunity to sign the document and that if he
wanted to live in the society he should sign the
agreement or should die by taking poison. Soon
thereafter the deceased committed suicide.
Thus the evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which
one person told the other to go and die without actually
suggesting that the opponent should commit suicide. In
the present case the evidence collected by the
investigation suggests that the deceased had been
actually pushed to the wall and the escape by
committing suicide was suggested by the accused
persons."
24. In the light of the material on record, in our
judgment, it cannot be said that the trial court was in
error in drawing an inference that the appellant had
"instigated" the deceased to commit suicide and
therefore, there was ground for presuming that the
appellant has committed an offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
16. Although in the above case the Court framed the charge under
Section 306 of IPC and Supreme Court approved the said order on the
ground that on the basis of material available on record since there was
an instigation and compelling the deceased asking him to sign the
agreement or should die by taking poison and soon thereafter he
committed suicide but in the case at hand there is no such instigation
and nobody asked deceased to commit suicide and situation was also not
so critical that could not be handled.
17. The applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment in case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. passed in Appeal
(Crl.) 572 of 2002 in which the Supreme Court has considered the
situation and observed as under:-
"A word uttered in a 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 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."
18. In the said case, the Supreme Court further observed that even if
the prosecution story is accepted that the appellant did tell the deceased
'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
'instigation'. However, here in this case, there was no such instigation
but from the facts it reveals that there used to be quarrel between
husband and the wife.
19. In Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2019) 17 SCC 301 considering the law laid don in the case of
Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 observed
as under:-
15. Thus, "abetment" involves a mental process of
instigating a person in doing something. A person abets
the doing of a thing when:
(i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or
(iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime.
The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite,
urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.
16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions.
In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the
court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof
of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.
In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act
of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and
reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the
accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may
not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of
suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts
and by his continuous course of conduct creates a
situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other
option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within
the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays
an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-
respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim
to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part
of the accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and
if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the
accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap
show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the
offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused
kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such
being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour,
each case is required to be examined on its own facts,
while taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be
affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of
one's action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
by different persons; and so far a particular person's
reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there
is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess
the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could
also vary for a variety of factors, including those of
background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstances.
20. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Supreme Court it
is clear that in the present case, the situation is not so which establishes
that there was no other alternative left by the accused persons before the
deceased but to commit suicide. It is also not a case that the deceased
was so helpless and was not in a position to take any action against the
wife and relatives. On the contrary, as per the FIR made by the wife in
2018, it was the husband who assaulted her and then she made
complaint against the husband.
21. In the present case, the suicide note is the foundation for
registering an offence against the present applicants and recital of the
suicide note does not indicate that there was any sort of abetment on the
part of the accused persons and it is also not clear that there was any
mens rea compelling husband to commit suicide. It is also clear from the
suicide note that the wife alleged that the deceased was a drug addict
and used to take some prohibited drugs.
22. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
material produced by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that in the
present case the trial court before framing charge under Section 306/34
of the Indian Penal Code has not considered the material ingredients of
constituting the said offence. Undisputably, the suicide note was the
foundation of registration of offence but that does not reveal any type of
abetment and instigation by the accused persons compelling deceased to
commit suicide. It is also not a case in which the accused created a
situation before the deceased leaving no option and alternative but to
commit suicide. Thus, the order framing charge under Section 306 of
IPC against the accused persons, in my opinion, on the basis of material
produced by the prosecution is not sustainable.
23. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The order dated
14.12.2021 passed by XXV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in
Sessions Trial No.41/21 framing the charge against the applicants under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Raghvendra
RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
2024.05.08
11:11:52 +05'30'
