Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manbihari Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 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 13th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.539 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MANBIHARI MISHRA S/O BHAIRAV PRASAD
MISHRA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST
2. HARIBHAJAN @ HALKAI MISHRA S/O
MANBIHARI MISHRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
3. JITENDRA @ JITTU MISHRA S/O KAMLESH
MISHRA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE RANIPURA, POLICE
STATION BAJNA CHHATARPUR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MP)
....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
POLICE STATION BADAMALAHARA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MP)
2. MANNU ADIWASI S/O AJUDDI ADIWASI R/O
VILLAGE SURAJPURA KALAN, POLICE STATION
BADAMALAHARA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MP)
....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT/STATE BY SHRI PUNIT SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
...............................................................................................................................................................................
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
2
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is
heard finally.
2. By the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants are assailing the order dated
17.09.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chhatarpur,
in Special Case No.217/2020 whereby the trial Court has framed charges
under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(2)
(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act against them.
3. As per facts of the case, Jalam Adivasi, who was a shepherd went
towards jungle on 02.01.2020 early morning for grazing his cattle when
did not turn back to his house, then his father namely Mannu Adiwasi had
informed the police about the said fact and thereafter, the police registering
a missing person case had made a search and found that by hanging, Jalam
Adivasi committed suicide. Thereafter, vide merg intimation
No.0002/2020, a case under Section 174 of the CrPC got registered and
matter was enquired about and during the course of enquiry, it was
gathered by the police that the applicants had not only abused the deceased
but also assaulted him because their cattle (buffaloes) were found missing
and suspect was on the deceased. During enquiry, the police also came to
know about the fact that the applicants had created pressure upon the
deceased for brining their cattle back, failing which, matter would be
reported to the police and he would be sent to jail. However, the deceased
had informed this fact to his friends and also to his parents and when he
could not handle such pressure, then by hanging committed suicide.
(3.1) The police had recorded the statement of family members of the
deceased in which they informed the police that the applicants were
creating pressure upon the deceased for bringing their cattle back. The
family members of the deceased had also informed that the deceased
during his lifetime had informed them that he was being pressurized by
Manbihari Mishra and Halkai Mishra. The police after investigating the
matter had submitted the charge-sheet and thereafter on 17.09.2021, the
trial Court framed the charges under Section 306/34 of the IPC and also
under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act against the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that no sufficient
material was there before the trial Court to constitute the offence against
the applicants under Section 306 of the IPC and also under Section 3(2)(V)
of the SC/ST Act. He has submitted that even the prosecution has failed to
collect any material indicating that the present applicants at any point of
time had given any threat to the deceased. He has also submitted that
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC were completely missing and as
such, in absence of any such material, offence under Section 306 of the
IPC is not made out against the applicants. In support of his contention, he
has relied upon an order dated 07.05.2024 passed by this Court in Cr.R.
No.329 of 2022 [Anju Raidas and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and another].
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted
that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be gathered that
the deceased was being threatened continuously that an offence would be
registered against him and he would be sent to jail. He has further
submitted that from the statement of family members of the deceased, it is
also clear that the deceased was being harassed by the applicants
unnecessarily and, therefore, left with no other option, he committed
suicide. According to him, under such circumstances, the offence has
rightly been registered against the applicants. He has submitted that the
revision deserves to be dismissed.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, on perusal of record and also from the statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer during the course of enquiry, it is clear that there was
no abetment on the part of the applicants/accused asking deceased to
commit suicide. At no point of time, any of the accused persons had
compelled the deceased for committing suicide and as such, the
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are certainly missing in this case.
Although, it is to be considered as to whether the material available before
the trial Court for constituting an offence under Section 306 of the IPC
was sufficient or not. In my opinion, for formulating the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC, there must be some abetment on the part of the
accused persons. For the purpose of convenience, the provision of Section
306 of the IPC is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
'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.'
Further, abetment is defined under Section 107 of the 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.
7. From the statement of family members of deceased, it is clear that
the material ingredients of Section 107 of the 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.
8. As per the provision of Section 306 of the 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.
9. 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. Undoubtedly, this case does
not cover the situation under which because of abetment caused by the
accused persons, the deceased committed suicide whereas it is a case in
which the accused persons had created an atmosphere before the deceased
leaving no other option before him but to commit suicide.
10. Recently, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
07.05.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.27101 of 2023 [Dr. Shivani Nishad
and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another] has
considered the aspect in relation to a person who was being pressurized
and threatened for lodging a false complaint against him and also for
sending him to jail and under pressure suicide was committed, then it has
been observed by the Court that under such circumstances, if charge of
under Section 306 of the IPC is framed then it cannot be said to be
improper.
11. However, it will be determined after conducting trial as to whether
the circumstances as created before the deceased were so intense that he
could not regal out from the same and ultimately, committed suicide. The
trial Court on the basis of material available before it shall see as to
whether those ingredients are sufficient to formulate an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC or not. Although, from the total material collected
by the prosecution and produced before the trial Court, I can understand
that no material was there before the Court to formulate the offence under
Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act against the applicants for the reason that
if a person, who belongs to a particular tribe had committed suicide but not
addressed or humiliated with the words relating to his caste, then in
absence of any such aspersion, the offence relating to the SC/ST Act is not
made out. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.09.2021 as far as it
relates to framing the charge against the applicants under Section 3(2)(V)
of the SC/ST Act is quashed. So far as the charge framed against the
applicants under Section 306/34 of the IPC is concerned, in view of the
law laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Shivani
Nishad (supra) which is as under:-
'21. The Supreme Court in the case of UDE Singh (supra) has held as
under:
21. In the given set-up and the respective position of the
parties, if Accused 1 continuously addressed or called the deceased
girl as his "wife", in our view, the utterance was not merely of teasing
but of demeaning and destroying the self-esteem of the young girl
whose engagement had broken and whose uncle was mocking her to
join him in matrimony. It was the act of humiliation of highest order
for the girl, who had personally suffered the set-back of broken
engagement, apart from that she was unable to clear even 10th
standard examination. Obviously, she was being ridiculed and taunted
for her broken engagement. The other accused persons chose to join
Accused 1 and aggravated the humiliation of the girl by addressing her
as younger brother's wife or aunt. There remains nothing to doubt that
the accused persons were working with the common intention to
harass and humiliate the girl with reference to her broken engagement.
The significant part of the matter is that such taunting and humiliation
of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons had not been a
singular event or one-off affair but had been a continuous feature, as
amply established by the prosecution witnesses. The incident of 5-5-
1996 drew the final straw when the hapless girl received the same
taunts from the accused persons and she even rebuked them. We find
no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 2 Jai Narain as regards
the incident of 5-5-1996. Equally, there is no reason to disbelieve the
statement of PW 11 Smt Krishna that her daughter wept the whole
night after the said incident; and on being frustrated and exasperated
with such humiliations, expressed her intention to end her life. The
fact of the matter remains that the victim girl ended her life in the
early morning very next day.
22. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that
the present one had not been a case of a mere eve teasing, insult or
intimidation but the continuous and repeated acts and utterances of the
accused persons were calculated to bring disgrace to the village girl
and to destroy her self-esteem; rather the acts and utterances were
aimed at taking her to the brink of helplessness and to the vanishing
point of tolerance. It had not been a case of mere intimidation or
insult. The incessant intimidation and insult of the innocent girl had
been of instigation; and such instigation clearly answers to the
description of abetment of suicide. Therefore, in our view, Accused 1
and 3 have rightly been held guilty of offence of abetment of suicide.'
* * *
24. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of UDE Singh (supra) a
constant threat to falsely implicate the deceased in a case of rape and eve
teasing and to send him to jail would not be a mere empty threat but it would
demean and destroy his self-esteem as well as his career by branding him as
a criminal of committing a heinous crime of rape and by ensuring that the
deceased is lodged in jail on the basis of false allegations. If the deceased
was afraid and was apprehensive of destruction of his self-esteem and
respect in the society, then on account of daily humiliation at the hands of
the accused persons, if the deceased committed suicide, then prima facie an
offence under Section 306 of IPC would be made out.
* * *
29. If the statement of Smt.Shanti Ahuja is considered in the light of
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of UDE Singh (supra),
then it is clear that the deceased, who was making preparation for appearing
in PSC for getting a Government job, was upset because of his false
implication in criminal cases he would not get any Government job apart
from the continuous threat of his false implication in a case of rape and eve-
teasing. He was further upset by the continuous taunts that he is a shameless
person and has not died in spite of registration of cases.'
I am of the opinion that in the present case, the deceased being a member of
weaker section was being pressurized and threatened by the powerful and
influential persons of the village for doing a thing of their choice failing
which he would be implicated in a criminal case for doing mischief of their
cattle and when the deceased could not handle the said pressure, then under
depression he committed suicide. However, the facts of the-then existing
circumstances would be determined during trial, but so far as the charge
framed by the trial Court against the applicants under Section 306/34 of the
IPC is concerned, I am of the opinion that sufficient material was placed
before the trial Court to frame the said charge and as such, the order of trial
Court to the extent of framing the charge against the applicants under
Section 306/34 of the IPC, in any manner, cannot be said to be illegal nor
it warrants any interference from this Court.
12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the revision filed by the
applicants stands allowed in part.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
DEVAS
HISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=db02acf8752ec7d40d9c7b27069
98aa1774d10503fedd8b615ae6aa42b074
MISHR
2c1, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=BEDBFB3F19D3D59DD832
1BCADFBB1022C2BA335355DDF542C665
C4209BF8F691, cn=DEVASHISH MISHRA
Date: 2024.05.30 10:33:45 +05'30'
A
