Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1112 (MP)

Ravikant Verma v. State of M. P.

2015-10-16

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER : S.K. PALO, J. 1. This revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 2.09.2015 passed by 9th ASJ, Gwalior, in S.T. No. 290/15 whereby charges under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of the petition are on 20th March, 2015 Prahalad Das Verma found hanged at his residence in the railing of his house. On this intimation, merg No. 16/15 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was lodged. During enquiry it is found that deceased Prahlad Das Verma aged about 80 years died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Deceased Prahlad's son, the present petitioner, Ravikant Verma, was pressurizing him and was harassing him to transfer the house into his name. Because of this harassment, deceased Prahlad committed suicide. The statements of the widow of the deceased, Rakesh and Virendra, other sons of the deceased have stated in their statements that, Ravikant was pressurizing the deceased to transfer the house in his name. It is also stated that he was threatening him of self immolation. Because of this harassment, he left for Panipat and Agra to join some service. Because of ill health he returned back three years back. But the behaviour of Ravikant did not change. He had been abusing his father and mother. Because of which, deceased had taken such a drastic step to end his life. 2. In S.T. No. 290/15, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC. The learned 9th ASJ, framed charges under Section 306 IPC in alternative 302 of IPC, rejecting the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner/accused assailed this order and framed charge, on the ground that report was lodged by the petitioner himself about the death of the deceased. The conduct of petitioner was bona fide and honest. There is no criminal antecedent. There was a dispute of property for a long period in the past. Father of the petitioner disowned the petitioner from his property and had issued a notice to the petitioner. The statements of the petitioner's mother and brothers shows that dispute was purely about property which existed since last two years. The other witnesses Kishanlal and Ashok have also agreed that there existed some dispute for a long time. Father of the petitioner disowned the petitioner from his property and had issued a notice to the petitioner. The statements of the petitioner's mother and brothers shows that dispute was purely about property which existed since last two years. The other witnesses Kishanlal and Ashok have also agreed that there existed some dispute for a long time. There was no immediate nexus between the said dispute or cruelty and the committing suicide. The deceased and his two sons had never approached to any Court for redressal of grievances. The petitioner never encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC regarding abetment to commit suicide is completely lacking in the case. 4. The motivation alleged by the prosecution is that the petitioner was pressurizing his father to transfer the house in his name. It is worth mentioning here that the deceased had executed a "will" on 20.07.2009 by which he has distributed the property between his three sons. The "will" though known to all was not challenged by any one. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order of framing charge against the petitioner be set aside. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the above submissions and stated that because of the threatening and harassment by the petitioner, the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, prima facie offence under Section 306 is made out. 6. For better understanding of the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision of Section 107 of IPC:-Sec. 107 "First--Instigates any person to do that things; 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." 7. In the present context, it cannot be said that the petitioner has instigated the deceased or intentionally aided the deceased for committing suicide. The principle laid down in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750 needs mentioned here. In the present context, it cannot be said that the petitioner has instigated the deceased or intentionally aided the deceased for committing suicide. The principle laid down in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750 needs mentioned here. In which Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 IPC, 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". In view of the matter, the action of the petitioner may fall in a different category of crime but not under "abetment" to commit suicide, nor there is any iota of evidence regarding culpable homicide amounting to murder. 8. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (I) SCC 73 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that:-- "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 that accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty" 9. From the above discussions it is found that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the deceased belonged. Keeping in view the same it can be said that such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce individual in a given society to commit suicide, even if taken for granted that the petitioner was bent upon to transfer the house into his name. Be that as it may, in the present case, the ingredients of abetment for committing suicide is not present. Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise the revisional powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Petition is allowed. Order dated 2.09.2015 is set aside. Framing of charge against the petitioner under Sections 306, 302 of IPC is set-aside.