Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rattilal Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
1 CRR-1425-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1425 of 2023
RATTILAL GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Dutt - Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Sharma -
Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Ram Milan Saket and Shri Aatish Yadav - Advocates for the
objector.
ORDER
This Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by
IX Additional District Judge, District Katni (M.P.) in Sessions Trial
No.132/2022 whereby charges under Section 306/34 of the IPC have been
framed against the applicants.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecution case
against the applicants is that on 20.11.2020 deceased Lalluram Bais
committed suicide before running train. His dead body was kept in the
District Hospital, Waidhan. A suicide note was recovered from his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
2 CRR-1425-2023
possession. The suicide note was verified by the handwriting expert (State
Examiner of Questioned Documents Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Jahangirabad, Bhopal) that the suicide note was written by the deceased
himself. In the suicide note, deceased has noted that Rattilal Gupta, resident
of Pachour has committed a grave injustice with him. He could not know this
fact. He has sold only 10 Are land bearing survey no.737 and rest was not
sold to Rattilal Gupta and Rattilal Gupta make him signed on the sale deed
of 2.5 acre of land and he could not know it and no one has informed him
about this act of the Rattilal Gupta. After two years, when he went to his
village Pachour, applicants told Lalluram to get his crops registered online.
For the said purpose, deceased went along with Rattilal Gupta and Bhaiyalal
Saket to Waidhan and there, they told him to sign documents and
photographed him and went in the office and the deceased was sitting outside
the office. After half an hour they told him to sign again and thereafter, they
told him that his crops was registered online. Rattilal Gupta puts his thumb
impression and thus applicants played fraud with him and make transfer deed
in their favour and prior to ten days, he could not know about this fact. The
applicants are rich persons and is a poor labourer. He could not do anything
against the applicants. Applicants were giving 60-70 quintal paddy and 40-50
quintal wheat crop for the two years to Lalluram Bais and no account was
given into consideration and due to that Rattilal Gupta and Bhaiyalal Saket
has taken his life.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per the case diary
itself, the first transaction by which the deceased has sold one hectare of land
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
3 CRR-1425-2023
bearing survey no.737/1 on 31.03.2014 and other peace of land of the same
survey number measuring 2 hectares was transferred by registered deed on
02.08.2016 and the deceased has committed suicide on 20.11.2020.
4. Reading the gist of the charge sheet, learned senior counsel has
submitted that as per the prosecution case itself, it is clearly mentioned that
the deceased has sold the land on March, 2014 and 02.08.2016 and the
applicants were giving agricultural produce to the deceased in July, 2020.
The Coal India Limited acquired the land of village where deceased was
residing and due to that price of the land has increased. When the land was
sold to Rattilal Gupta, prices of land were very low. Prior to date of incident,
the land was measured by the authority of Coal India Limited, therefore,
family members of the deceased pressurized him to take the land back from
Rattilal Gupta therefore, he requested Rattilal Gupta and on this point, he
denied and after that on 20.11.2020, deceased has committed suicide near
railway station, Devragram.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that there was
no nexus or direct relation between the suicide and sale deed and thus, the
applicants could not be held liable for abetment of suicide. Learned counsel
for the applicants has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the
case of Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in
Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017 dated 03.10.2024 and also in the case
o f Ayub and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another passed in
Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2025 dated 07.02.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the objector has argued that in the suicide note of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
4 CRR-1425-2023
deceased had clearly mentioned that the transaction of transfer was forged
and by those forged documents, the applicants along with co-accused person
have taken the possession of the land and when it came into the knowledge
of the deceased, he requested to reconvey the land to him but the applicants
were not ready and the deceased was not in a position to challenge the act of
the applicants as he was economically poor labourer. Hence being depressed
by the act of the applicants, deceased has committed suicide, as no other
alternative was left with him.
7. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the objection filed by
him, he has annexed the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue passed in
Appeal No.189 of 2022 and submitted that revenue authority has clearly held
that the transaction was fraudulent. He has further submitted that the legal
representatives of the deceased have filed civil suit before the civil court and
that is pending. Thus, it is apparently clear that the transaction was forged
and due to that deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
He further submitted that the matter is in progress and the trial will be
concluded in near future, hence no interference is required, as the matter will
be decided on merits. He has relied order passed by this court in the case of
Savita Raikwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Other s passed in Writ
Petition No.5230 of 2023 dated 22.12.2023 and submitted that the act is a
chain and the chain is completed and, therefore, it can be concluded that the
accused may be held guilty for abetment to suicide.
8. Learned counsel for the State submitted that from the perusal of the
statements of other witnesses it is clear that the deceased has committed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
5 CRR-1425-2023
suicide due to frustration. There is a fraudulent transaction and the deceased
has left with no other option then to commit suicide. Land was the only
source of their livelihood, hence the deceased has committed suicide.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the charge sheet has
been submitted before the trial court with the conclusion that the deceased
was having agricultural land bearing survey no.737/1 which, deceased has
sold 1.5 acres of land on 02.08.2016 and 2.5 acres of land on 31.03.2014 and
the applicants was giving produce of agriculture in lieu of that land. In the
year 2020, the Coal India Limited has acquired the land of that village and
the price of the land was enhanced. At the time, when deceased sold the land
to the applicants, it was on very low price and when the land was being
surveyed by the Coal India Limited, Lalluram Bais requested the applicants
that his family members and other persons are advising him to take back the
land which he has sold to the Rattilal Gupta and after one week discussion,
Rattilal Gupta has denied the offer. The deceased and his family members
and Sarpanch has also requested the applicants to return the land back to the
deceased but applicants denied therefore, deceased came in tension and has
committed suicide on 20.11.2020.
11. On the date of the incident or near about 20.11.2020, no cruelty, no
assault and no insult was committed by the applicants with the deceased and
it is clear that the deceased judgement of selling as he has sold the land and
at that time the price of the land was very low and became a matter of loss
and when he came to know that the land has been acquired by the Coal India
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
6 CRR-1425-2023
Limited he may get a high amount by acquisition of that land. He requested
the applicants to reconvey the land but applicants denied. Thus, in this
frustration, the deceased has committed suicide. It is also clear that just
before the death of the deceased or during the period of 2014 to 2020,
deceased has not filed any application for land before any court or has
requested the applicants to return his land by executing reconveyance and
this is the main reason mentioned in the suicide note. In the suicide note he
has challenged that the transaction was fraudulent and in the investigation,
the police has not concluded that the transaction was fraudulent or genuine,
hence from the prosecution documents, it could not be inferred that the
transaction was fraudulent. It has not been brought on record that the
intention of the applicants was to defraud the deceased so that the deceased
would commit suicide. Looking to the nexus of transaction between
31.03.2014 and 02.08.2016 more than four years of the last transaction, no
action was taken by the deceased. Hence it cannot be said that the applicants
have enticed the deceased to commit suicide. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Nipun Aneja (supra) has discussed various judgments in this regard in
paragraphs 21 and 22, held as under :-
"21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of
the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is
committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to
commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing
suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two
broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental
ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category
would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused
in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
7 CRR-1425-2023
sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may
result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently
creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the
person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give
temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is
relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister,
sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental
tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second
category the tie is on account of official relations, where the
expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for
such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in
law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie
cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being
different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The
former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter
category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are
prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations. 22. The test that
the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an
endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record
whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the
accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a
period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be
read into or gathered only after a full- fledged trial. The problem is
that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing
more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts
is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation.
For example, whether the accused had the common intention
under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-
fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as
regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the
weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in
cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things
clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself.
The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law
governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the
inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the
correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which
leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and
appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of
the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they
decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police.
However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
8 CRR-1425-2023
look into the matter and see that the persons against whom
allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or
they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them."
12. Looking to all these facts, it is concluded that there are no ingredients
of Section 107 of the IPC as pointed out by the applicants and on that basis
they could not be held liable for abetment to suicide.
13. In the case Savita Raikwar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the
objector wherein the factual aspect was that petitioner/wife of Rajesh
Raikwar was creating constant pressure and threatening the deceased to
return some documents that were not available with the deceased and his
family members. Threat was also given by the wife of Rajesh Raikwar that if
the documents demanded are not returned, she would implicate the deceased
persons in a criminal case and they would be sent to the jail and due to that
deceased was in constant pressure and fear. In these circumstances, this court
citing the various judgment held that if anyone makes constant pressure and
the victim was left with no option then to commit suicide then that person
can be held liable for abetment to suicide.
14. In the present case, it is clear that the transactions were of the year
2014 to 2016 and the land of the village was acquired by the Coal India
Limited in the year 2020. It may be the frustration that the deceased has
taken a wrong decision to sell the land to the applicants at a very low price
and he was demanding the land back but if a rightful owner deny to return
the land back, this act is not illegal and by that it cannot be said that the
person of common prudence will be disturbed or frustrated. Furthermore, if
the transaction was fraudulent, the deceased was having the option to file a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28484
9 CRR-1425-2023
civil suit or follow other proceedings but he has not adopted the same. In that
situation, it cannot be said that the applicants have instigated the deceased to
commit suicide as there is no mens rea and they were not having any
knowledge that the deceased may commit suicide by any act, hence no
case under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicants is made out. The
impugned order of framing the charge dated 12.10.2022 is hereby quashed.
The applicants are discharged from the offence punishable under Section
306/34 of the IPC.
15. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed.
16. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial court.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
SSL
