Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
1 CRR-2195-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2195 of 2021
AWADHESH KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ghanshyam Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. Government Advocate for State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3234 of 2022
RAM SINGH MAHDELE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Prasad Gautam - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. Government Advocate for State.
Heard on : 08.07.2025
Pronounced on : 30.07.2025
ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
2 CRR-2195-2021
The applicants being aggrieved with the order passed by the Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, District - Panna dated 04.08.2021, these
revisions have been preferred quashing the charge framed by the trial Court
for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. In nutshell the prosecution case before the trial Court was that
deceased Harishchandra Ahirwar s/o Late Sarju Ahirwar was working as a
peon in the Art College, Panna. He was addicted to alcohol and usually he
did not return the home. On 01.11.2020 at about 15:00 hours, one Rahish
Chacha told his son Rahul Ahirwar that in Pahad Kothi on a tree, one person
committed suicide by hanging himself, when his son went towards that
place, he saw that his father was hanging on rope tied with branch of the tree.
He intimated to the Police Station - Kotwali. Dead body was taken down and
sent for autopsy. A suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the
deceased in which he had mentioned that he had borrowed the money from
three persons and had paid the amount but still they are demanding the
money by making the pressure and are threatening to present the cheque in
the bank and by that reason, the deceased committed suicide.
3. Merg was registered and police investigated the matter and found
that the numbers mentioned in the suicide note were of Awadesh Kumar
Tiwar, Ramsingh Mahdele and one Pappu Mahdele who has not been traced.
Statement of the family members of the deceased were recorded and it was
found that the deceased had borrowed the money and had paid the amount to
the applicants but they were calculating the interest on higher rate and were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
3 CRR-2195-2021
demanding the money and were threatening that they will make present
cheque before the Bank and will make it dishonored and on that pressure the
deceased has committed suicide.
4. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma and Shri Jitendra Prasad Guatam, learned
counsel for applicants have submitted that no cheque was recovered from the
possession of the applicants. Only on the basis that the deceased has
mentioned their names and mobile numbers in suicide note stating that they
were making the pressure to pay the money and were threatening that the
cheques obtained from the deceased will make present before the bank as
well as to demand their lended money, constitute no offence if deceased has
committed suicide. Learned counsel for applicants has also submitted that the
family members have also supported the same facts and incorporated a new
fact that the applicants had demanded the money on the date of suicide.
5. Learned counsel for applicants relying on the judgment of Mohit
Singhal & Another vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Others passed by Hon'ble
the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 , has
submitted that in the same facts and circumstances, Hon'ble the Apex Court
has held that to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the
ingredients mentioned in Section 107 of the IPC must be fulfilled and there
should be proximity between the suicide and the act of so called accused
persons.
6. Learned counsel for applicants also relying on the judgment of
Rajesh s/o Mangilal Rathore vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3857 of 2022 dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
4 CRR-2195-2021
26.04.2023 has submitted that to constitute the offence under Section 306,
the act of the accused person must be such nature where the victim has no
option but to commit suicide.
7. Learned counsel for applicants further relying on the judgment of
Prabhu vs. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Another
passed in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39981/2022 dated 30.01.2024 has submitted
that to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, ingredients of
Section 107 of the IPC that defines the abetement, should be fulfilled and
accused must have intended to know that the deceased can commit suicide
because of his actions or omissions.
8. Learned counsel for State has submitted that on investigation it was
found that three numbers were mentioned in the suicide note that are
7987966848 belongs to M. Rawat, 9039524228 belongs to A.K. Tiwari and
mobile No.8959633551 but mentioned in suicide note i.e.8959699551
belongs to Ramsingh Mehdele s/o Late Munnilal Mehdele. It has been also
proved by the witnesses that the deceased had returned the borrowed money
to these applicants along with Pappu Mehdele but still the applicants were
demanding money and on non payment, they were threatening that they will
make present the cheque obtained by the deceased before the bank and in
that pressure, the deceased committed suicide. As per the report of hand
writing expert, the suicide note was written by the deceased, hence, no case
for interference is made out.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The case progress report was called from concerned Special Judge
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
5 CRR-2195-2021
and as per the report received on 13.05.2024, no progress has been made in
the case till then.
11. I have gone through the case diary. As stated above, in the Merg
Intimation that was recorded by son of deceased Rahul Ahirwar on
01.11.2020 at 15:00 hours. As per that, the deceased left the home on
31.10.2020 at about 11:00 AM as he was working as peon in the Art
College, Panna. It has also been mentioned that his father was addicted to
alcohol and often he did not come to home at night, so the Family Members
did not make search of deceased and on the next day i.e. 01.11.2020 at 15:00
hours when one Rahish chacha informed them that his father has committed
suicide near Pahad Kothi, he visited the spot and found that the deceased was
hanging on the tree.
12. Two things are apparent from this information that deceased was
addicted to alcohol and often he did not come to his home after completion
of the duty from the school. Thus, no one was caring that he had returned or
not. Dead body was found on the tree in a hanging condition and in the
postmortem report, it was found that the deceased died due to asphyxia due
to cardio respiratory failure due to hanging and death occurred 24 hours from
the examination of the dead body that was conducted on 01.11.2020 at about
4:30 PM.
13. In the suicide note, name and amount of M. Rawat - 7987966848 -
15,000 = 2250, A.K. Tiwari- 9059524228 - 8,000 = 2000 and Pappu
Mehdele 8954633551 -10,000 = 1,000 are written and has also written that
how muct to be paid and while he has paid the money to these three persons,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
6 CRR-2195-2021
they have compelled to commit suicide. These persons have threatened him
to present the cheques before the bank, therefore, these three persons are
liable for his suicide.
14. In the statement of family members of the deceased, it has been
found that the deceased was having four sons and was working in Chhatrasal
College for last 30 year and the salary was not sufficient to maintain the
expenditure of education of the children, hence, frequently he was taking
loan from other persons and when he got the salary, he was returning the
amount. Deceased borrowed the money from Pappu Mehdele, Awadesh
Kumar Tiwari and Ram Singh Mehdele and was paying the money along
with interest and when they were giving the loan to deceased, they took the
blank cheques signed by deceased. They were taking 15 to 20 % interest on
the loan amount. On the date of suicide and accused persons visited his house
and asked why he is not paying their money then deceased had stated that he
had paid the money four times what he had borrowed and on that these
accused persons along with Pappu Mehdele threatened him that if he will not
pay the money in that month they will make present the cheques in the bank
and will make them bounce and will send him to jail and after that the
deceased was disturbed. Thus, the basic cause of the suicide have stated that
the applicants were demanding the money and were threatening that they will
present the cheques before the Bank and will send the deceased to jail.
15. In the case of Mohit Singhal and Another (supra) the same
situation was also and in that case also, a suicide note was recovered and it
was recorded in that the deceased's wife had borrowed Rs.65,000/- and had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
7 CRR-2195-2021
paid more than half of the amount to the accused and as she could not pay
the rest of the money, the accused came to his house and started abusing him
and assaulted him for which the deceased made a complaint to the Police. It
was also mentioned in the case that one day the accused came in the shop of
the deceased and assaulted the deceased, the deceased pleaded with the
accused to give some time, so that he could arrange some money and it was
also alleged that the applicant abused the deceased and assaulted the
deceased with the belt and also assaulted his wife and his mother and
threatened to abduct his daughter. It was also alleged that the accused
persons had taken 10 to 12 cheques from the wife of deceased and cheaques
were dishonored and notices were issued on 27.06.2017 and it was alleged
that due to this episode the deceased was under tension and upset.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering these factors has held that the
last date when accused threatened and assaulted the deceased was
15.06.2017. Notice was issued on 27.06.2017 and the deceased committed
suicide on 30.06.2017 after three days of that. Hon'ble Apex Cout has
discussed the provision of Section 107 of the IPC and has held that to attract
the first clause of Section 107 of the IPC to instigate a person to do a thing,
must be proved and accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide and the act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is
intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has
not choice but to commit suicide and there must be close proximity in the act
of instigation and committing suicide and when the proximity is not
established, the accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
8 CRR-2195-2021
Section 306 of the IPC.
17. Furthermore, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prabhu (supra)
in para -10 on wards discussing the case law on the point held as under :
"10. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon
this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements
of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
10.1 Where the words uttered are casual in nature
and which are often employed in the heat of the
moment between quarrelling people, and nothing
serious is expected to follow from the same, the same
would not amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami
Prahaladdas v. State of M.P 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438,
Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371,
Paragraph 12]
10.2 In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be
shown that 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. The words uttered by
the accused must be suggestive of the consequence
[Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618, Paragraph 20]
10.3 Different individuals in the same situation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
9 CRR-2195-2021
react and behave differently because of the personal
meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for
individual vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009)
16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20]
10.4 There must be direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused
must be shown to have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West
Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 12- 14]
10.5 The accused must have intended or known
that the deceased would commit suicide because of his
actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628]"
18. Further in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P.,
(2010) 1 SCC 750 in para 17 held as under : -
"17. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
10 CRR-2195-2021
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 this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide."
19. The same principle has also held in the case law cited by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajesh s/o Mangilal Rathore (supra).
20. In the light of the above principles, the facts of this instant case are
considered and it is clear that the deceased was addicted to alcohol as well as
he was also frequently taking loan and was returning to the persons.
21. The deceased has mentioned the name of three persons but from
the investigation, it is clear that during the investigation applicants namely
Ramsingh Mehdele and Awadesh Kumar Tiwari were found but the third
person Pappu Mehdele was untraceable and his family members also failed
to recognize Pappu Mehdele where he resides and how is his appearance and
subsequently it has been stated that Ramsingh Mehdele and Pappu Mehdele
is the same person.
22. During the investigation, the prosecution has not recovered or
seized any cheque of the deceased from the possession of the applicants and
also not inquired whether any cheque book was issued to deceased by the
bank or not. Furthermore, the family members have stated that prior to date
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
11 CRR-2195-2021
of suicide, these three persons visited to his house and demanded the money
and threatened to deceased that if amount of this month is not paid, they will
present the cheques and after being dishonored, they will make him to send
the jail.
23. In dying declaration, no date has been mentioned that lastly when
the accused persons had threatened him. Thus, the demanding the money
from the borrower, could not be said to be abetment. He was regular
employee and was getting a salary and there was the total loan amount was
Rs.33,000/- as mentioned in suicide note.
24. Furthermore, he has never lodged any report to the concerned
Police Station that he has paid the money and after that accused persons are
harassing him to pay more interest or money.
25. In the light of above judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court
and this Court as well as considered opinion of this Court, no case of
abetment to suicide is made out against these applicants.
26. The offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is an
enabling provision to enhance the punishment and this Section itself does not
constitute any offence. Hence, charge under Section 306/34 is not made out
and automatically the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act
alone cannot be framed, hence, the applicants are discharged from the
offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act. Trail Court is free to try the case if any other offence
under any act is made out.
27. With the above observations, these revision petitions are allowed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35055
12 CRR-2195-2021
and disposed of.
28. A copy of this order be kept in the connected case.
29. With a copy of this order, record of trial Court be returned back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
DPS
