Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 912 (MP)

Munnalal Jain v. State of M. P.

2008-07-24

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2008
ORDER 1. The applicant has preferred this revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5th February, 2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in ST No.223/07, whereby ordered for framing of the charge under section 306 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.1.2005 at village Rannod one Kalicharan S/o Bhaiyalal Soni committed suicide by hanging himself. On information, Police Rannod had registered an inquest report and started investigation. On search, a suicidal note has been found in the pocket of deceased Kalicharan, wherein he stated that for his suicide accused Munna Chowdhary and Hartoon Singh should be held liable because they had forced him for payment of due amount which he had taken as loan from some person of Banskhedi. On the basis of this suicidal note a case under section 306 IPC had been registered by the police. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to the Government Hospital where the concerning Autopsy Surgeon performed the post-mortem and opined that deceased Kalicharan died due to asphyxia on account of hanging by neck. The police had prepared spot map, recorded the statements of various witnesses and arrested the accused and after investigation charge-sheet had been filed. 3. Learned trial Court, after perusal of the entire documentary evidence on record, by the impugned order came to the conclusion that prima facie charge under section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant and ordered for framing of the aforesaid charge; feeling aggrieved by which the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as public prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the main document of the prosecution is the only suicidal note alleged to be written by deceased Kalicharan before committing the suicide, wherein he only stated that accused Munna Chowdhary and Hartoon Singh should be held responsible for his death because accused Munna Chowdhary had forced him for payment of Rs. 1,55,000/-, threatened him for this recovery and also beat him by means of hand on the cheek. 1,55,000/-, threatened him for this recovery and also beat him by means of hand on the cheek. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is nowhere stated in this alleged suicidal note that the applicant-accused had ever instigated deceased Kalicharan for commission of suicide and if the applicant-accused had demanded any loan amount from the deceased then by his act itself the ingredient of instigation for commission of suicide is lacking and the charge under section 306 IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly ordered for framing of the charge under section 306 IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of Hon 'ble the apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v.State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2002(2) JLJ 275 = AIR 2002 SC 1998 ], and other various decisions in the case of Ashok Kumar Sawadiya v. State of M.P [2001(1) MPWN 93]; Abdul Hanifv. State of M.P [ 2002(II) MPWN 12 ]; Kashiram v. State of M.P [ 2006(1) MPWN 106 ]; Prakashchand v.State of M.P [ 2007(1) MPWN 20 ]; Pramod Kumar and another v. State of M.P [ 2007(II) MPWN 26 ]; Devendra Singh v. State of M.P [2007(1II) [2009(111)MPWN 95]; and Nirmal Jain and others v. State of M.P. [ 2008(II) MPWN 66 ]. In all these decisions it is laid down that if the instigation for commission of suicide is not proved by the prosecution then certainly the charge under section 306 IPC cannot be framed. 6. Learned public prosecutor for the State supported the impugned order and submits that on perusal of the alleged suicidal note written by deceased Kalicharan the instigation part by the applicant-accused is prima facie proved. The trial Court has rightly believed the aforesaid suicidal note and rightly ordered for framing of the charge against the applicant and no illegality is apparent, on which basis the impugned order can be interfered with. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the revision. 7. The trial Court has rightly believed the aforesaid suicidal note and rightly ordered for framing of the charge against the applicant and no illegality is apparent, on which basis the impugned order can be interfered with. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the revision. 7. On perusal of the suicidal note alleged to be written by deceased Kalicharan it is apparent that he had taken a loan of Rs.l,00,0001- from a person belonging to village Banskhedi on the surety of the applicant/ accused Munna Chowdhary and also agreed to pay the amount with interest @ 3% per annum and out of which he had returned a sum of Rs. l,40,000/-Thereafter it is alleged that the applicant-accused is further demanding remaining amount of Rs. l,55,000/- and on the date of incident he also demanded the aforesaid due amount of Rs. l,55,000/- positively till the next morning. Thus, in the aforesaid suicidal note there is nothing written that the applicant-accused had stated anything to the deceased Kalicharan for commision of suicide and the only allegation against him is for demanding of remaining amount of Rs. l,55,000/- forcefully. Admittedly the aforesaid amount is loan amount and in view of that the demand of any loan amount itself does not prove the instigation for commission of suicide. 8. The Hon'ble apex Court in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), has clearly laid down that to prove the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, simple word stated by the appellant-accused "to go and die", that itself would not constitute ingredient of instigation as defined under section 306 and section 107 of IPC. 9. On perusal of section 107 of IPC it is apparent that what is the meaning of 'abetment of a thing'. Section 107 reads as under: "107. Abetment of a thing. -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -- 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 tat thing. by any act or illegal omission , the doing of tat 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." On perusal of the aforesaid provision of section 107 IPC it is apparent that the prosecution must prove the fact that the appellant/accused has intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing by the deceased. In the present case there is no such allegation against the appellant-accused that he had intentionally aided the deceased for doing the aforesaid act of suicide. Therefore, the material ingredient of section 107 IPC is clearly lacking in the evidence collected by the prosecution in the present case. 10. In the case of Pramod Kumar (supra), this Court had clearly laid down that merely demand of the advanced money or pressurizing by the accused to the deceased for the payment does not itself prove the instigation for commission of the offence of suicide by the deceased. Similar principle has also been laid down by this Court. in another case of Prakash chand (supra). 11. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sawadiya (supra), this Court has clearly laid down that merely written in the suicidal note with regard to the beating by the accused and public humiliation also does not constitute the offence of instigation for commission of suicide against the accused, as in present case also the deceased had written in the suicidal note that the appellant/ accused had slapped on his cheek at the time of demanding the due loan amount from him. Thus, that beating by the appellant/accused to the deceased does not prove any instigation to the deceased for commission of suicide. 12. Similarly, in the decision in case of Abdul Hanif (supra), this Court again laid down that merely threatening or beating by the accused to the deceased does not constitute any instigation for commission of suicide and in view of that the accused had been discharged from the charge under section 306 IPC. 13. 12. Similarly, in the decision in case of Abdul Hanif (supra), this Court again laid down that merely threatening or beating by the accused to the deceased does not constitute any instigation for commission of suicide and in view of that the accused had been discharged from the charge under section 306 IPC. 13. In case of Nirmal Jain (supra), this Court has again laid down that if there is no evidence with regard to provocation, incitement or encouragement by the accused to the deceased for commission of suicide, then certainly the accused cannot be charged for the offence under section 306 of IPC. 14. Thus, on perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court relied on in various decisions of this Court and on perusal of the total evidence available against the applicant, it is not proved by the prosecution that the appellant-accused had ever instigated the deceased for commission of suicide and in view of that, framing of the charge under section 306 IPC appears to be erroneous. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of framing of charge under section 306 IPC against the applicant is set aside and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charge.