Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 90 (MP)

Nirmal Jain v. State of M. P.

2008-01-17

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2008
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this revision against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Damoh, in Sessions Trial No. 15712006, framing the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against them. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, prima facie, on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. There is absolutely no evidence to infer that petitioners in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the petitioners had assaulted the deceased, it cannot be said that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Since no ingredient of abetment is found in the facts of the prosecution case, learned trial Court committed error in framing charge under section 306 of the Indian penal Code against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the deceased committed suicide because the petitioners did not get the cycle of his son repaired, which was damaged by Ashok and instead, abused and assaulted him. Being harassed and frustrated by the arrogant conduct of petitioners, he committed suicide by hanging with a tree. Since the deceased committed suicide as a result of direct acts of the petitioners, trial Court did not commit any error in framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In short, the facts of the case are that, on 30.12.2005 when Santosh, son of Gopal (deceased) was riding his cycle, it was dashed by the motorcycle of Ashok. Rim of the cycle was damaged. Ashok apologized and told to Santosh that he would get it repaired. In the meantime, accused Rajneesh reached there and asked Ashok to go home and assured that he would get the cycle of Santosh repaired. When Ashok went to home, accused Rajneesh hold that he would spend only Rs. 10-20/- for repairs and not more than that. On objection, the accused/petitioners reached there and indulged in altercation. In the meantime, Gopal (deceased) reached at the spot and admonished all the accused persons. Accused persons abused Gopal and grappled him. They also assaulted him. Tarabai reached there and intervened in the quarrel. Gopal left the place of occurrence and went away. Till late night, Gopal did not come back. In the meantime, Gopal (deceased) reached at the spot and admonished all the accused persons. Accused persons abused Gopal and grappled him. They also assaulted him. Tarabai reached there and intervened in the quarrel. Gopal left the place of occurrence and went away. Till late night, Gopal did not come back. Even on search, he could not be found out that day. On the next day morning around 7:30 a.m., dead body of Gopal was found hanging with rope on mango tree. On intimation to police, a "marg" report was registered. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Doctor who conducted post mortem found circular ligature mark on the neck of deceased. In his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Police registered the case under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioners and recorded statements of the witnesses. 5. On perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses viz. Santosh Yadav (son of deceased), Tarabai (sister of deceased) and Kanchedi Yadav (daughter-in-law), who happened to be eye witnesses of the occurrence, it is found that they merely stated that the accused persons had abused and assaulted the deceased. After the assault, deceased had gone away from the spot and on next day morning his dead body was found hanging on a tree. It has also been stated that a death note was also found on the body of deceased, in which, deceased had expressed his frustration that he could not bear the insult meted out to him by the accused persons. Since accused· had assaulted him, he was not able to show his face to anybody. Other witnesses viz. Hira Singh, Raghuveer and Anandrani, corroborated the statements of the witnesses, by stating that the occurrence was narrated to them by Santosh Yadav. 6. Taking into consideration all the facts as narrated by the prosecution witnesses, as it is, it is apparent that the deceased feeling dejected and insulted as he was abused and assaulted by the accused persons, committed suicide by hanging on a tree. 7. The question in the present case is as to whether, considering and accepting the entire material available on record as absolutely correct and true, prima facie, the case for alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused/ petitioners. 8. 7. The question in the present case is as to whether, considering and accepting the entire material available on record as absolutely correct and true, prima facie, the case for alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused/ petitioners. 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 reads 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 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. 11. On examining the facts of the present case, it clearly appears that none of the accused goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely refused to get the cycle of Santosh repaired and quarreled with and assaulted the deceased. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. 12. Since there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the accused/petitioners in any manner instigated, incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, or to indicate any intention on their part that the deceased should commit suicide; it cannot be held that the petitioners in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In absence of essential ingredient of abetment, no charge for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed against the accused persons. 13. In absence of essential ingredient of abetment, no charge for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed against the accused persons. 13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the learned trial Court committed error in framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 14. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing charge against the petitioners under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is quashed.