Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1395 (MP)

Rohit Yadav v. State Of M. P.

2014-10-30

S.K.PALO

body2014
ORDER : Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Pachori, Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State. None appeared for respondent No. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the F.I.R. of crime No. 204/2013 dated 16-9-2013 registered at Police Station Bhander, District Datia under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused persons were threating the deceased Seema Lodhi and her husband Bahadur Singh Lodhi by telephone and they were also stalking them while they were going to their office. Once the accused persons had followed by the motorcycle and overtaking Bahadur Singh Lodhi and Smt. Seema Lodhi tried to abuse them. They used to harass them. Because of this, after about 2-3 months, on 13-9-2013, Bahadur Singh and his wife Seema committed suicide at their residence. The Police Station Bhander registered the F.I.R. after preliminary inquiry under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. Heard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by any imagination the petitioner cannot held to have abated the offence of suicide. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that because of threatening on phone calls by the petitioner and the co-accused persons, Bahadur Singh Lodhi and his wife Seema Lodhi died. Therefore, section 306 of Indian Penal Code is attracted. 6. In State of W. B. vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994(1) SCC 73 has held: "This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 7. In the case of Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2108 has held : "The alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide." 8. In case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A. P., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 by the Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated and held that : "abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing - Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In order to convict a person under section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide - Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty - Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under section 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable." 9. In view of the matter the action of the petitioner may fall in different category of crime but not under "abetment to commit suicide". Be that as it may, in the present case, the abetment for committing suicide is lacking. Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and the petition is allowed. The F.I.R. registered at crime No. 204/2013 dated 16-9-2013 under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and further proceedings are hereby quashed. Further, it is made clear that if the petitioner is held liable for any other offence, the respondents are free to take action as per law.