Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Das Sirvaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
1 CRR-6372-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6372 of 2024
GHANSHYAM DAS SIRVAIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Priyank Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Pandey - Dy. G.A. for the respondent/ State.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. r/w 438 r/w 442 of the B.N.S.S. against the
order dated 05.11.2024 and statement of charges dated 05.11.2024.
2. The petitioners are Ghanshyam Das Sirvaiya (father-in-law of the
deceased Deepak Kumar Kaithele), Pranav Sirvaiya (brother-in-law of the
deceased) and Himanshu Sirvaiya (wife of the deceased).
3. It is informed that learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge,
Devsar, District Singrauli in S.T. No. 85/2024 vide order dated 05.11.2024
has framed following charges :-
''आपने घटना दनांक 17.02.24 के समय 16:30 बजे, घटना थल
वराज एजसी के पास, िचतरं गी म मृतक द पक कुमार ने वयं को आग
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
2 CRR-6372-2024
लगाकर आ मह या कर ली और ऐसा करने के िलये योजन यह था क आप
ने अ य आरोपीगण के साथ िमलकर सामा य आशय िनिमत कया और
सामा य आशय के अ शरण म आपने अथवा अ य सह आरोपीगण ने
द पक कुमार क मारपीट कर उसके साथ उसे मानिसक व शार रक प से
ता डत कया गया और ऐसा कर आपने द पक कुमार को आ मह या करने
िलये द ु े रत कया।
और इस कार आपने वह अपराध कया जो धारा 306/34 भाद व
के उपबंध के अधीन दं डनीय और इस यायालय के सं ान के अंतगत है ।
अत: म िनदिशत करता हू ं क आपका वचारण उ आरो पत अपराध के िलये
कया जावे।''
4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that in
dying declaration dated 18.02.2024 which is at page No. 72 of this Criminal
Revision it has been stated by the deceased as under :-
" दनांक 17/02/24 को समय लगभग 4:30 पी.एम. पर म अपने कराये के
मकान िचतरं गी म घर के पीछे पे ोल अपने शर र पर डालकर आ मह या क
कोिशश कया उसक बजह यह है क दनांक 14/02/24 को अपनी प ी से
बोला क तुम कसी और से बात करती हो फोन दखाओ जस बात को लेकर
मेर प ी अपने पता एवं भाई को मायके से बुलाई जो मेरे ससुर व साले हमारे
पास आये व मेरे साथ मारपीट कये जस लानी वस म अपने आप को आग
लगाकर आ मह या करने क कोिशश कया।''
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on decision in
the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under :-
"16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment for the offence of
abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107 of the IPC
which defines the act of 'abetment'. The provisions read as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
3 CRR-6372-2024
"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."
"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.
Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide
by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the
prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of
suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the
three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions
include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit
suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or
engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the
person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
4 CRR-6372-2024
established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea--the
intention to abet the act--is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is
not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The
prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused
that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea
cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and
explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for
establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the
necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or
contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by
this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan5, wherein it was
observed that:
"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 the Supreme 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."
19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to
establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit
suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of
circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person
to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh6, defined the word "instigate" 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
5 CRR-6372-2024
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."
20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case
under Section 306, IPC are:
i. the abetment;
ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide.
21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the
accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the
evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or
harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but
to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to
the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish
guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the
accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or
drove the victim to commit suicide.
22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and
that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve
instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the
act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played
a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active
role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section
306 IPC cannot be sustained.
23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through
actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the
victim's decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not
suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or
facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time
of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
6 CRR-6372-2024
behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through the establishment
of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306 IPC can be
justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active
involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged abetment
of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this court in
several judgments, such as:
i. M. Mohan v. State7;
ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal8;
iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka9.
24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be
clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit
suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment,
involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions,
requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the
accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are
not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the
victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions
must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines
whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or
tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If
the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger,
they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each
case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's
intent and its impact on the victim.
25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana10, held that to
convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state to
commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing culpability.
It was observed as under:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
7 CRR-6372-2024
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 abovereferred, 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 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."
26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and the material
on record in the present case and in light of the law laid down by this
Court regarding Section 306, IPC, there appears no proximate link
between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her subsequent
death by hanging. The alleged incident of selling of gold ornaments
and subsequent physical and mental harassment, as alleged, occurred
almost a year before the FIR was registered at the instance of the father
of the deceased. Even the statements of the deceased's cousins only
mention instances which occurred a year prior to the death of the
deceased. Further, selling of gold ornaments and the same was
followed by discord and harassment upon their demand, even if true,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
8 CRR-6372-2024
do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased
to commit suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife
and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a
scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life.
There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the
deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellants
did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any
positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission
of suicide by the deceased.
27. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section 306, IPC are
not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record.
Therefore, they cannot be charged under Section 306, IPC and thus
deserve to be discharged of the same.
28. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed,
they are discharged from the charges under Section 306 of the IPC,
however the charge under Section 498A of the IPC is upheld and the
trial under this provision shall proceed against them."
6. Additionally, it is also submitted by petitioners' learned counsel
that earlier petitioner Himanshu had lodged a complaint at the police station
Annexures P/3 and P/4 to the effect that she is working as a nurse and her
husband Deepak was causing physical and mental harassment to her and she
is working as a nurse but husband is demanding her full salary and he is
suffering from migraine.
7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
Annexure P/5 which is a letter bearing No. 1068 dated 29.02.2024 issued
under Right to Information Act by the District Hospital shows that earlier
deceased Deepak Kumar was admitted in the hospital on 15.10.2023. It is
also mentioned there in that his family members quarrelled with the hospital
staff and took away case papers with them. Learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
9 CRR-6372-2024
petitioners submitted that the deceased was of violent nature to the extent
that he would inflict injury to himself even without a valid reason and he
further submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is
true, still the accused persons cannot be said to have abetted the deceased
for committing suicide.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
charges have been correctly framed by the learned trial Court. He very fairly
submitted that in post-mortem report the mode of death is mentioned as due
to burning and it is not by assault or throttling of neck or administering of
poison etc.
9. It is seen from the final report dated 22.07.2024 that charge-sheet
has been filed against accused persons under Section 306/34 of IPC on the
ground that when he tried to check mobile phone of his wife, she called her
brother and father who thrashed (marpeet) the accused and being aggrieved
by this act of his wife and his father-in-law and brother-in-law the deceased
committed suicide. No other allegations have been made for which prima-
facie trial can proceed. The action of " marpeet" as mentioned in the dying
declaration dated 18.02.2024 cannot be separated from the alleged abetment
for suicide. In the present time, it is within the right of every person
including wife to maintain her privacy and wife and husband prima-facie
don't have a right to check each other's phone to verify with whom one is
talking, as trust is bedrock of any relationship, therefore, prima-facie charges
under Section 306/34 of IPC are not made out. Hence, order of framing
charge dated 05.11.2024, FIR and entire prosecution against the petitioners is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4654
10 CRR-6372-2024
liable to be set aside.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (Supra), it is seen that no charge is made
out against the accused under Section 306 / 34 of IPC and further prosecution
will be a wastage of precious time of parties and Court, therefore, instant
revision is allowed and charges framed against the petitioners vide impugned
order dated 05.11.2024 under Section 306 /34 of IPC are quashed.
Accordingly, the criminal revision stands disposed of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
