Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1068 (MP)

Prabhudayal Ahirwar v. State of M. P.

2002-12-04

N.S.AZAD

body2002
JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks his discharge in S.T. No. 281/2001, pending in the Court of 2nd ASJ Tikamgarh, wherein a charge for offence puni shable under section 306/34 IPC is framed against him. As per prosecution, on 29.4.1998, at about 1.00 a.m., Maniram Ahirwar and his wife Renka Ahirwar, quarrelled with deceased Munnalal Sahu. In quarrel, Renkagave him beating with Chappal, on his asking to pay price of ice, Thereafter, Maniram, Chhuttu alias Chotelal, went to the shop of Munnalal Sahu under the State of intoxication at about 8-9 p.m. and hurled abuses on Munnalal on account of which he committed suicide, in night by throwing himself on railway track. Before recording opinion on the facts of present case, it is useful to quote following para's of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., reported in 2002 CrLJ page 3796 -- 9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438; the appellant was charged for an offence under section 306, IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased "to go and die". This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased "to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 10. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under section 306, IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:-- My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning. 11. This Court considering the definition of 'abetment' under section 107, IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 12. 11. This Court considering the definition of 'abetment' under section 107, IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 12. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire, Acquitting the accused this Court said: 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 hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord the difference 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 abeting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. Then, it is found explained by Apex Court in Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) that even if in a case where in a quarrel, the accused told the deceased to go and die" and the deceased committed suicide, the suicide being not the direct result of quarrel, in the absence of mens rea which is necessary concomitment of instigation, the accused cannot be said to had abeted the commission of suicide. Consequently, the petitioner's prosecution in S.T. No. 281/2001 for offences punishable under section 306 IPC, deserves to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid legal position and hence, the same is quashed in exercise of inherent powers. The petitioner stands discharged for offence runsihable under section 306 IPC.