Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 685 (MP)

Govind Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-05-10

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. With the consent of both the parties this petition is disposed of finally at the motion stage. 2. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against him in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2005 in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar and also for quashing of the charge framed against him under section 306 of the IPC. 3. In short the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner, who is President of Guardians' Union in Village Sironja, on 6.11.2004 misbehaved and indulged in altercation with Rajkumari (deceased), Head Mistress of Govt. Primary Schol, Sironja, making accusation against her that she used to steal the food material which was handed over to her for providing mid-day meals to school children, as a result of which she committed suicide by ingesting some insecticide. On report by Chandra Pratap, nephew of deceased, a case under murg was registered. After inquiry Crime No. 387/04, under section 306 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. 4. During investigation police recorded the statements of Chandra Pratap, Ganpat, Seema, Rajiv Shrivastava, Sunita Sharma, Malti Yadav, Radha Sharma, Kusum Rani and Shobha Agrawal under section 161 of the Code and also seized a letter written by deceased to Collector and District Education Officer making complaint against the petitioner. After requisite investigation the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner before the Court. 5. During trial learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge against the petitioner under section 306 of IPC, aggrieved whereby the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses recorded by the police under section 161 of the Code and from the circumstances appearing therefrom, prima facie no ingredients of the offence under section 306 of IPC i.e. abetment to commit suicide are made out, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner in consequent criminal prosecution against him deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner had misbehaved with the deceased and had levelled false accusation of theft against her, due to which she was compelled to commit suicide, as such his act prima facie made out a case of abetment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner had misbehaved with the deceased and had levelled false accusation of theft against her, due to which she was compelled to commit suicide, as such his act prima facie made out a case of abetment. 7. Before adverting further, it is necessary to have a look of the relevant provisions of the law. Section 306 of IPC provides: "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 10 years and shall also be liable to fine." Section 107 of IPC defines abetment of a thing to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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. 8. On analysing the aforesaid provisions of law it is apparent that the offender should have done or said anything which would amount to instigation or incitement provoking deceased to commit suicide with the requisite intention of so doing. Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = (2002) 5 SCC 371 ] held: "10. 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 of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 12...............Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to "go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigage" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate of incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 12...............Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to "go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigage" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate of incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea." Keeping in view the above legal proposition, on examining the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code it is found that the allegation against the petitioner is that he used to supply food materials including vegetables and pulses to deceased for preparation of mid-day meals. It is said that when the petitioner gave inflated bills, it was objected by the deceased, whereupon there had occurred some hot altercation, during which petitioner asked the deceased to take responsibility of bringing the food material herself. It is further said that the petitioner checked the food material kept by the deceased by weighing it and levelled accusation against the deceased of having committee pilferage in the aforesaid material. There had been some altercation again between them. It is said that the deceased made a complaint in writing in the Collector and District Education Officer, but no action was taken, therefore, feeling frustrated she ingested some insecticide and ultimately died. 9. On going through the statements of aforesaid witnesses there appear total lack of material to show that the petitioner by any way intended that deceased should commit suicide or acted in such a manner to incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. 10. A plain reading of the letter written by the deceased would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed state of mind because of the harassment caused by the petitioner but the conduct of petitioner cannot be described or taken as abetment to commit suicide in the absence of requisite intention on his part to bring about or achieve that result. 11. In view of the above legal and factual circumstances I am of the definite opinion that the ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for making out an offence under section 306 of IPC. 12. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. In view of the above legal and factual circumstances I am of the definite opinion that the ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for making out an offence under section 306 of IPC. 12. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The criminal prosecution as well as the charge framed against the petitioner for the offence under section 306 of IPC in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2005 is quashed.