Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 660 (MP)

Bhawati Choudhary v. State of M. P.

2015-06-29

M.K.MUDGAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. The applicant/accused has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 16/2015 framing the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 2. Case diary is not available, but the copy of the 2. charge-sheet has been filed by the applicant/accused in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits 3. that learned trial Court has committed error in framing the charge against the applicant/accused under Section 306 of the I.P.C. because as per prosecution story when the deceased Rajabai went to a public tubewell, at 8:00-9:00 am on 31.12.2014, for taking water, the applicant/accused came there and dispute arose between them. At that time, the deceased threatened the applicant/accused that she would commit suicide because she had been insulted by her. On the same day at 1:30 pm she committed suicide by hanging herself. Counsel further pleads that the applicant/accused did not abet the deceased in any manner for committing suicide. In this case, there is lack of evidence under Section 107 of the I.P.C. against the applicant/accused. Hence, he be discharged. 4. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 5. Before going into the merits of the case this Court would like to throw light on term abatement to commit suicide. The word abatement has been defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under :- 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. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any 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. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion in the judgment of the case Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhatisgarh 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088 to dwell in para 20 as under :- "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provide, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion in the judgment of the case Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhatisgarh 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088 to dwell in para 20 as under :- "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provide, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused ahad by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case as instigation may been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 7. Similarly, The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred a few judgment in 8 to 11 of the judgment in the case Sanju @ Sanjay vs State of M.P. : 2002 (5) SCC 371 to clarify the term abatement which reads as under :- 8. In Swamy Prahaladas vs. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased "to go and die". This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased "to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 9. In Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157 the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under : (SCC p. 731, para 1) "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." 10. They beat me and abused me. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." 10. This Court, considering the definition of "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh : 2001 (9) SCC 618 this Court was considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in 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 bad set herself on 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 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 8. In para 25 of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of S.S. Cheema vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and others : 2012 (12) SCC 190 has observed as under :- 25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Radheshyam vs State of M.P. : 2014 (3) MPHT 103 it is held that demanding borrowed money back cannot be construed as harassment to the deceased and abetting him to commit suicide. 9. The case in hand is being discussed in the light of 9. the aforesaid judgments. On perusal of the statements of Samaylal Rajak husband of the deceased, Anuj @ Nibbu Rajak the son of the deceased, Jugul Kishore Rajak another son of the deceased, Vishwasi Lal Rajak, Smt. Brijesh Rajak, Harideen Rajak, Smt. Ramkali Rajak, Smt. Siyadulari Rajak, Smt. Munnibai, Ram Sahay Patel, Nagendra Chaudhari, Shyam Ji Patel, Indrapal Rajak and Sone Lal Chaudhari, it has come on record that there is a government tubewell in the village, wherefrom all the villagers take water. On the fateful day, when the wife of Samaylal Rajak Smt. Rajabai, aged 36 years, had gone to take water from the tubewell, the applicant/accused Smt. Bhagwati Chaudhari came there and she abused her, thereafter a dispute arose between them. The applicant/accused tried to assault her with a stone, but no injury was caused to the deceased. The husband of the deceased Samaylal Rajak and other family members reached there and they took back the deceased home. On the same day at 1:30 pm, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. If the contents of the statements of the witnesses are presumed to be correct, no offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. is made out against the applicant/accused as she had not abetted the deceased in any manner to commit suicide. On the same day at 1:30 pm, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. If the contents of the statements of the witnesses are presumed to be correct, no offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. is made out against the applicant/accused as she had not abetted the deceased in any manner to commit suicide. If the deceased had been assaulted or abused by the applicant/accused a report would have been lodged against her for taking legal action in this regard, but no inference can be drawn against the applicant/accused for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. 10. Considering the statements of the witnesses and 10. the law relating to Section 306 of the I.P.C. as discussed earlier, this Court arrives at the conclusion that learned trial Court has committed an error in leveling the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the applicant/accused. Therefore, allowing the revision and setting aside the impugned order, the applicant/accused is hereby discharged under Section306 of the I.P.C. Her bail bonds stands canceled. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary information and compliance.