Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 173 (MP)

Ankit Gupta v. State of M. P.

2015-02-09

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Session Trial No.276/2014 dated 5.9.2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the present applicant under section 306/34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 20.4.2014, the deceased Yogesh Rawat committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. According to prosecution story, the present applicant along with other co-accused made the deceased habitual of dance parties and high style of living. They compelled him to borrow money on higher rate of interest and encouraged him to spend money on expensive items including garments for the accused also. Subsequently, when heavy loan was outstanding against the deceased, they started harassing him mentally and physically and driven by such mentally harassment the deceased committed suicide. 3. Case-diary is available. As per statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, the deceased while being taken to Indore for further treatment, made an oral dying declaration before the prosecution witness Dipak Rawat and Satish Rawat. His father also confirmed that the present applicant and other co-accused were harassing him for recovery of loan amount. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Babbi @ Jitendra v. State of M.P., [ 2008(III) MPWN 8 = 2008(2) MPHT 160 ]. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Court observed that :- “9. For making out an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is ‘abetment’ by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. section 306 of 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. 10. 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. 11. 10. 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. 11. 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.” 5. Applying this principle in the present case, it appears that none of the accused provoked, incited or goaded the deceased or even encouraged him to commit suicide. They merely demanded money which the deceased allegedly taken on loan and they never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. 6. In my opinion, there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the present applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In absence of such essential ingredients of abetment, no charge for the offence under section 306 of IPC is made out against the present applicant. 7. In this view of the matter, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.276/2014 dated 5.9.2014 is set aside. The present applicant is discharged from charges under section 306/34 of IPC. 8. With that observation and direction, this revision stands disposed of. ..................