Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 5 (MP)

Manakchandra Jain v. State of M. P.

2015-01-05

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No.435/2014 dated 27.8.2014 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the present applicants under section 306/34 of IPC, this criminal revision is filed for setting aside the impugned order and discharging the present applicants from the charges as aforesaid. 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself with the help of a rope. On intimation being given by the landlord Rajendra Kumar Shastri, present Crime No.5/2014 was registered at Police Station Kharakuan, District Ujjain, under section 306/34 of IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, the deceased was living alone in the rented accommodation. Applicant No.5 Nilima Jain was wife of the deceased. Applicants No.1 and 2 were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively and applicants No.3 and 4 were brothers-in-law of the deceased. 4. It is almost admitted position that the deceased was not having cordial relationship with his wife. A matrimonial dispute is pending between them and also it appears that there was some property dispute between the deceased and the applicant No.5. 5. According to the present applicants, prior to the occurrence, the deceased underwent an operation. He was also having some Spinal problem due to which, he suffered severe back pain and due to all the deceases, he committed suicide. There was no overt act on the part of the applicants which had driven him for taking such an extreme step. The applicants placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in 2002(2) JLJ 275 (SC) = 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 in which, it was held that ingredients of section 107 of IPC should present for taking the act as abatement of the suicide. “Instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur or moment, such as “to go and die”, cannot be taken to the uttered with mens rea. 6. “Instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur or moment, such as “to go and die”, cannot be taken to the uttered with mens rea. 6. Placing reliance on this judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicants argues that in the present case, the present applicant were not present when the deceased committed suicide. He was living separately, therefore, it cannot be taken as abatement on their part, due to which, the deceased committed suicide. 7. To see whether, the deceased committed suicide on being abated by the present applicants, there should present one of the ingredients as stated in section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC requires either of three overt acts on behalf of the person said to have abated the suicide :- First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one 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 act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 8. Applying this principle in the present case, the suicide note hardly indicated the overt act on the part of the present applicants. 9. It is apparent from the record that the deceased was also suffering from some physical ailment due to which, he underwent operation immediately prior to his death. The suicide note left by the deceased elaborately describes various acts on the part of the present applicants specially his wife applicant No.5 due to which, he was mentally depressed and committed suicide. Taking the facts as stated in the suicide note, this case can be differentiated from other similar cases of suicide in respect of that in this case, the applicant No.5 was his wife. Secondly, most of the acts were elaborately described in the suicide note which can be confirmed by litigation and other documents available. 10. It is apparent from the record that the deceased was also suffering from some physical ailment due to which, he underwent operation immediately prior to his death. Secondly, most of the acts were elaborately described in the suicide note which can be confirmed by litigation and other documents available. 10. It is apparent from the record that the deceased was also suffering from some physical ailment due to which, he underwent operation immediately prior to his death. The suicide note left by the deceased elaborately describes various acts on the part of the present applicants specially his wife applicant No.5 due to which, he was mentally depressed and committed suicide. Taking the facts as stated in the suicide note, this can be differentiated from other similar cases of suicide in respect of the fact that in this case, the applicant No.5 was his wife. Secondly, most of the acts were elaborately described in the suicide note which can be confirmed by litigation and other documents available against them. It may further be considered that for abatement to commit suicide, mental state of the deceased must be ascertained. In the present case, suicide note clearly indicates that he was under severe mental stress due to acts of his wife and other in laws. It may be true that due to his physical ailment, he was suffering from pain and other physical discomforts. However, at such physical state, mental and physical support from wife was required, which was denied by his wife applicant No.5 to the present applicant. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, from this point of view, I find that mental state of the deceased was such that commission of suicide can directly be attributed to the acts alleged to have been committed by the present applicants. In such a situation, at this stage, it cannot be said that any material irregularity had been committed by the trial Court in framing the charges under section 306/34 of IPC and accordingly, I do not find that under the power conferred on this Court under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, any interference is required. As such, this revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Umesh Sharma for applicants; Deepak Rawal, Government Advocate for respondent/State.