Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 62 (MP)

Vinod Singh Bhagel v. State of M. P.

2015-01-14

S.K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : S.K. Gupta, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 74/2014 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (in short "the Code") were framed against the petitioner. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 4.1.2014 a Merg was registered on the death of Seema Bhagel. During Merg inquiry, statement of father, mother and uncle of the deceased, and other witnesses were recorded. Parents of the deceased stated in their statement that petitioner used to beat and quarrel with the deceased on demand of dowry. Father of the deceased also stated in his statement that petitioner demanded Rs. 20,000 on 27.12.2013 by telephone but he refused to give. After completion of Merg inquiry, it was found that petitioner/accused used to commit cruelty with the deceased for not meeting the demand of dowry and because of this she committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, offence under Sections 498A and 306, of the Code has been registered against the petitioner/accused and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. After receiving the case on committal, Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner/accused under Sections 498A and 306 of the Code. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Code are not fulfilled and no iota of evidence is available on record to implicate the petitioner. He further submitted that nothing has been stated by the parents of the deceased against the petitioner, it is further submitted that allegations of demand of Rs. 20,000 as a dowry has been made by the father of the deceased on 27.1.2014 after the death of the deceased on 4.1.2014. It is also submitted that only on the basis of the statement of the petitioner/accused case under Sections 306 and 498A of the Code has been registered. Although in the Merg inquiry report, nothing has been found in the statement of the parents of the deceased about beating and cruel behavior with the deceased for demand of dowry. 3. Learned PP for the respondent/State has fully supported the impugned order passed by the Lower Court and submitted that there is prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioner for framing the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Code. 4. 3. Learned PP for the respondent/State has fully supported the impugned order passed by the Lower Court and submitted that there is prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioner for framing the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Code. 4. It is well settled principal of law that at the time of framing of the charge no rebuttal evidence and defence can be seen. Only on the evidence collected by the prosecution, in absence of any rebuttal, if any accused can be convicted for any particular offence, then charges of that offence shall be framed. Moreover it is clear that at the time of framing charges the gravity of evidence cannot be looked into. 5. Before considering the factual aspect of the case, it would be proper to have a look on the provision of Sections 306, 107 and 109, of IPC: Section 306--Abetment of suicide Code reads as under-- 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. Section 107--Abetment of a thing reads as under-- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First--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 lakes 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. Explanation 1--A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. Section 109--Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment reads as under: Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation--An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. 6. As Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is the duty of prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall within the purview in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the Code and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide. 7. When I considered the facts of the present case in the light of the above Principal of law, it becomes candidly clear that there is no abetment and instigation caused by the petitioner/accused to drove her (i) to commit suicide. Although there were an oral quarrel took place between petitioner and the deceased on the issue of children. After that deceased committed suicide but that not amounts to abetment or instigation within the purview of Section 107 of IPC. 8. Our High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and 306 of the Code in many cases. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 SCC 371 the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9 to 12 observed as under: "Para 9. In Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995) 3 SCC 438 Supp, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 of IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 10. In Mahendra Singh and Another, Gayatribai Vs. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 10. In Mahendra Singh and Another, Gayatribai Vs. State of M.P., (1996) CriLJ 894 : (1995) 3 SCC 731 Supp, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 of IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under-- My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning. 11. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 of the Code, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 12. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the Code on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 9. In the present case also evidence collected by the prosecution indicates that there is no overt act which falls within the purview of Sections 107 and 109 of the Code and, therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code is made out against the petitioner/accused. For the forgoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order framing charge under Section 306 of the Code the petitioner/accused deserves to be set aside. The petitioner/accused is discharged from the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code. 10. So far as charge under Section 498-A of the Code is concerned there is prima facie sufficient evidence available on record for demand of dowry. Father of the deceased specifically stated in his statement in Merg inquiry dated 4.1.2014 as well as under Section 161, of Cr.P.C. dated 27.1.2014 that petitioner/accused used to beat and quarrel with the deceased for demand of dowry and also stated that the petitioner demanded Rs. 20,000/-. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, for the forgoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that impugned order framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Code is hereby set aside. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed the trial against the petitioner for remaining charge under Section 498A of the Code according to law. 12. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed as aforesaid. Copy of this order be sent to the concerning Court for necessary compliance.