Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 366 (MP)

PARAMJEETSINGH CHAWALA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2007-03-29

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2007
( 1 ) THE applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 307 of the Cr. P. C. feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2007 passed by II ASJ, Mhow, in ST No. 45/2007, whereby ordered for framing of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that deceased Jagdish had borrowed a loan from the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh and he was paying the loan in instalment. Jagdish had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 29-3-2006 in mhow in his house. The matter has been reported to the police Mhow on which basis the police had registered inquest and started inquiry, sent the dead body of the deceasedi jagdish for postmortem examination and during inquiry the statement had been recorded. The deceased had also written a suicidal note which has been seized by the police wherein he stated that because of repeated demand of money by the accused paramjeetsingh he had committed suicide. After the inquiry the police had registered a case under Section 306 against the present applicant Paramjeetsingh and after investigation filed charge-sheet before the trial court. The trial Court, by impugned order dated 15-2-2007 came to the conclusion that prima facie a charge under Section 306 of the IPC is clearly made out against the applicant therefore ordered for framing of the aforesaid charge against the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by which the applicant has preferred this revision. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the record. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as it is alleged that the applicant has given certain loan to the deceased Jagdish and if he cannot return the aforesaid loan amount then the Act of the applicant/accused does not come within the purview of Section 107 of the IPC for abetment of suicide by the deceased Jagdish and the learned trial Court has wrongly ordered for framing of the charge against the applicant, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the trial court and for discharge of the accused. ( 5 ) IN reply, the learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. ( 5 ) IN reply, the learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. ( 6 ) ON perusal of the entire facts of the case and documents filed on behalf of the prosecutrix, the main document is the suicidal note alleged to be written by the deceased Jagdish wherein he stated that he borrowed some money from Paramjeetsingh, the accused and also paid considerable amount and the accused is demanding money from him and due to which he committed suicide. ( 7 ) THUS, only allegation in this suicidal note against the applicant is that repeated demand of the loan which he advanced to the deceased Jagdish and that by itself cannot come within the purview of Section 107 of the IPC for the act of abetment of suicide. ( 8 ) SAME is the statement of daughter of the deceased who stated before the police that her husband (father) deceased Jagdish was paying the loan amount to the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh but instead of that the accused Paramjeetsingh repeatedly demanding loan amount from her husband. ( 9 ) SAME is the statement of wife of the deceased. Thus the prosecution wants to prove the charge under Section 306 of the ipc against the applicant. ( 10 ) TO understand proper position of law it will be useful to quote the provisions of section 107 of the IPC which defines the abetment as under :- "107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who first - 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. Explanation 1 -"a person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 -"a person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 -Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. " similarly to understand the exact provision of Section 306 of the IPC it is useful to quote the section which is as under :-"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 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. " ( 11 ) THUS, on perusal of the aforesaid provision of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, the prosecution prima facie ought to be proved the instigation made by the accused or commission of the suicide by the deceased and in the present case it is apparent that the applicant/accused is only demanding money which he had given to deceased as loan and by demand of the loan amount from the deceased itself not comes within the scope of the abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. ( 12 ) IN a decision of this Court reported in Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of m. P. 2003 (1) MPWN 34 . The learned Judge of this Court while dealing with the situation of the borrower and creditor wherein the borrower has committed suicide, held as under :- "in my considered opinion the illustration has no relevance in a case of this nature. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did anything by which it can be said that he abetted in the suicide of the deceased. The relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was that of person granting loan and a borrower. Any dialogue taking place in that regard cannot be regarded as an abetment to bring the offence under essential feature of Section 306, IPC. The relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was that of person granting loan and a borrower. Any dialogue taking place in that regard cannot be regarded as an abetment to bring the offence under essential feature of Section 306, IPC. I may hasten to add the abetment in the case of dowry death and other cognate matters has a different feature but as far as commercial transaction of this nature is concerned, in my considered view, Section 306 is not attracted. In the result, the order of framing charge against the petitioner under section 306 is quashed. " ( 13 ) ON the same facts in another decision of this Court reported in Vedprakash v. State of M. P. , 1995 MPLJ 458 : 1995 Cri LJ 893 this Court held as under :- "a person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the 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 provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. In the present case none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. On the other hand they wanted the loan advanced by them to the deceased to be repaid by him. For the said purpose it was at least needed, if not essential, that Ramesh Kumar sadholia should live. " ( 14 ) SIMILARLY in the recent decision of this Court reported in Prakashchand v. State of M. P. 2007 (1) MPWN 20 , this Court held that "demand of due loan from the deceased who committed suicide does not amount abetment to commit suicide and in that case this charge has been quashed. " ( 14 ) SIMILARLY in the recent decision of this Court reported in Prakashchand v. State of M. P. 2007 (1) MPWN 20 , this Court held that "demand of due loan from the deceased who committed suicide does not amount abetment to commit suicide and in that case this charge has been quashed. " ( 15 ) SIMILARLY in another series of decisions reported in Ramnaresh v. State of M. P. 2002 (2) MPLJ 360 , Vishnu Prasad v. State of M. P. , 2005 (2) MPWN 274 and Madiya alias Mahadev v. State of M. P. 2006 (1) MPLJ 583 : 2006 Cri LJ 1963 this Court held that "mere demand of loan amount from the deceased does not amount the instigation or commission of the suicide by the deceased. " ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid case law on the point and on perusal of the totality of evidence on record the only fact appears that the applicant/accused was demanding the loan amount from the deceased and due to which the deceased has committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and thus the only demand of the loan amount does not itself prove the fact of instigation to the deceased for commission of the suicide, therefore, on the basis of that the applicant/accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. ( 17 ) RESULTANTLY, the revision preferred by the applicant is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court for framing of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC is set aside and the applicant/accused is discharged from the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. Revision allowed.