Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 89 (MP)

Kailash Chandra Nakra v. State of M. P.

2008-01-17

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2008
ORDER 1. Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 20.1.2007 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Damoh, in Sessions Trial No. 215/06, framing charge against them under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that prima facie on the facts and evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants. Counsel submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record to infer that applicants in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because applicants chastised the deceased accusing her that she committed theft of their ornaments, she committed suicide, it cannot be said that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Since no ingredient of abetment is borne out from the facts of the prosecution case, learned trial committed error in framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the deceased had committed suicide because the applicants had levelled false charge of commission of theft by her in their house and had assaulted her. Feeling defamed, she committed suicide by setting fire to her. Since deceased committed suicide due to the offensive conduct of applicants, the trial Court did not commit error in framing the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In short, the facts of the case are that Smt. Laxmi Bai used to do the work of cleaning utensils at the house of accused. Since last two months before the occurrence, her daughter Gudiya, aged about 18 years (deceased), also started working in their house. She used to clean the house. About a week before the occurrence, mother of applicant No. 1 died. Relatives of applicants came to their house. After working in the house Gudiya went away. After some time applicant Arpana Nakra went to the house of Gudiya and told her that she had committed theft of omament in her house. She took Gudiya to her house and beat her there. Laxmi Bai, mother of Gudiya, asked her not to beat her. Thereafter Gudiya went back to her house and set fire to her after pouring kerosene. 5. Before the death Gudiya was taken to hospital for treatment. She took Gudiya to her house and beat her there. Laxmi Bai, mother of Gudiya, asked her not to beat her. Thereafter Gudiya went back to her house and set fire to her after pouring kerosene. 5. Before the death Gudiya was taken to hospital for treatment. During her treatment her dying declaration was recorded by Naib- Tahsildar Pankaj Mishra. In the said dying declaration Gudiya stated that she had not committed theft of "Kangan". Accused/applicants had levelled false allegation of commission of theft. They had assaulted her. She had set herself on fire because she had been defamed as she had been engaged. She had committed suicide after pouring kerosene over her. On the basis of the aforesaid dying declaration police registered the case under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During investigation police recorded statements of Laxmi Bai, Ghanshyam, Manish, Komal, Bablu and Banti. All the aforesaid witnesses have stated that accused persons had imputed allegation of commission of theft by the deceased in their house. Feeling defamed and humiliated she committed suicide. 7. The question in the present case is as to whether considering and accepting the entire material and evidence available on record as absolutely correct and true, a prima facie case for alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants. 8. For making out an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is 'abetment' by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read 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." 9. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code 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." 10. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by 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. 11. On examination of the facts of the present case as they are, it is apparent that none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They in a desperate mood to inquire about the theft of ornaments, admonished and chastised the deceased. By their acts, it can never be inferred that they intended that the deceased should commit suicide. It is possible that deceased might have been of trail disposition. Feeling injured and defamed by the conduct of applicants she took the extreme step to end her life, but that cannot give rise to inference that accused wished, intended or anticipated that deceased should commit suicide. 12. Since there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that applicants in any manner instigated, incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, or to indicate any intention on their part that deceased should commit suicide, it cannot be held that applicants in any manner abetted deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of essential ingredient of abetment, no charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed against the accused/applicants. 13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge committed error in framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants. 14. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing charge against the applicants under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed.