Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 252 (MP)

Pramod Kumar v. State of M. P.

2007-03-01

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2007
ORDER 1. Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 16.9.2006, passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, in Sessions Trial No. 414/ 2005, framing the charge against the applicants u/s. 306/34 of IPC. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 18.7.2005, when Vijay Saraf (deceased) was in Court premises at Bina, applicants forcibly took him on a motorcycle, assaulted him and made him to sign some papers. Being harassed and frustrated, on 19.7.2005, Vijay consumed poison (Sulphas) and committed suicide. According to postmortem examination report, death was caused by cardio-respiratory failure, as a result of suspected poisoning. On receiving the report about his death, police registered a murg and enquired into the matter. On enquiry, it was found that after doing his MBA, deceased entered into partnership with Manish Shrivastava and obtained dealership of Indo-Parma Tractor. Both of them borrowed huge amount of money, but subsequently they incurred losses. According to prosecution, Manish Shrivastava was liable to make good all the losses, but he did not do so. It is said that the applicants had also advanced money to them, but when deceased did not repay their money, they harassed and intimidated him. On 21.5.2005 applicants assaulted Vma Shanker, the younger brother of the deceased, and again on 18.7.2005, when the deceased had gone to the Court, he was forcibly taken away by them and was assaulted and compelled to sign some papers. Subsequently Vijay had been freed by them and was left by the applicants in the Court. On 19.7.2005, when he was at his house, after taking meals, he went to a temple and consumed poison. This fact was intimated to his father by the priest of the temple. He was sent for the treatment, but despite efforts, he could not be saved. 3. During investigation, police recorded the statements of Madan Saraf, Savitribai, Vmashanker and Pankaj, who happened to be the parents, brother and friend of deceased. Madan Saraf in his statement reiterated that the deceased had incurred loss in the business, therefore, the partnership between him and Manish Shrivastava was dissolved in August 2004. Though Manish Shrivastava had to make good all the liabilities, but he failed to do so and the persons who had advanced money, started pressurizing the deceased for the payments. Madan Saraf in his statement reiterated that the deceased had incurred loss in the business, therefore, the partnership between him and Manish Shrivastava was dissolved in August 2004. Though Manish Shrivastava had to make good all the liabilities, but he failed to do so and the persons who had advanced money, started pressurizing the deceased for the payments. According to him, the deceased informed him that on 18.7.2005 Pramod Jain and Rajeev Shrivastava had forcibly taken him on a motorcycle and compelled him to sign some papers and had threatened him that the money shall be recovered from his father. On 19.7.2005, Vijay consumed poison in a temple. Similar type of statements were given by Savitribai and Vma Shanker. Witnesses Anil and Ashok disclosed that they had seen the applicants taking deceased on a motorcycle. Police also seized some letters, purporting to be written and signed by the deceased, wherein number of persons had been named alleging that they deceived him and misappropriated his money. It is important to note that the present case has been registered only against the two applicants. In the suicidal note, which is said to have been seized from the pocket of the deceased, it has been mentioned that Manish Shrivastava (not accused) had misappropriated Rs. 10 lacs. Satish Shrivastava, Raghvendra, Om Prakash Shrivastava and Asha Shrivastava had embroiled him in misdeeds. They made him to borrow money from people and later on under a conspiracy clamped the liability on him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even on accepting all the facts, alleged by the prosecution, as they are, no offence u1s. 306 of IPC is made out, as no ingredient of the offence u1s. 107 of IPC are present, which are required for constituting the offence of abetment to commit suicide. According to him, in the absence of material on record, constituting the ingredients of aforesaid offences, no charge u/s. 306 of IPC could be framed against the applicants. 5. The question in the present case is as to whether considering and accepting the entire material available on record as absolutely correct, a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence punishable u/s. 306 of IPC against the applicants is made out. 6. 5. The question in the present case is as to whether considering and accepting the entire material available on record as absolutely correct, a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence punishable u/s. 306 of IPC against the applicants is made out. 6. As per definition given in section 107 of IPC, abetment is constituted by: (i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or (ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or (iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit it. A person is said to 'instigate' another to act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to I provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. 7. In the present case, none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. There is nothing on record to indicate that they intended that the deceased should commit suicide. They only wanted the money advanced by them to be repaid by him. 8. Merely by the bald statement made by the deceased in the suicide note that some persons were liable for his commission of suicide, it cannot be held that they would become liable for the offence u1s. 306 of IPC, unless the ingredients constituting the offence u/s. 107 of IPC are found in it. In the present case, the only allegation made against the applicants is that they had dishonestly made him liable to the creditors. Even if the deceased was wrongfully restrained, assaulted and made to sign some papers for compelling him to repay the amount, it cannot be held that intention of the accused/applicants was to compel or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Even taking the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, true, no constituent ingredients of the offence u/s. 107 of IPC are made out. Consequently, the necessary ingredients for framing the charge u1s. 306 of IPC are also missing. The necessary ingredient of offence u/s. 306 of IPC is 'abetment'. Since the ingredients of abetment are missing from the facts of the case, prima facie no charge for the offence u1s. Consequently, the necessary ingredients for framing the charge u1s. 306 of IPC are also missing. The necessary ingredient of offence u/s. 306 of IPC is 'abetment'. Since the ingredients of abetment are missing from the facts of the case, prima facie no charge for the offence u1s. 306 of IPC can be framed against the applicants. 9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge u/s. 306 of IPC against the applicants. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing charge against the applicants u/s. 306 of IPC is set aside. Applicants are discharged.