Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 742 (MP)

MANOJ SHARMA v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-07-16

S.K.PALO

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 29-12-2014 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 497/2014, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under sections 306, 504 and 506-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass. 3. On 9-1-2014 Laxman Batham with Rakesh Batham and Deepak Batham lodged a report under sections 294, 506-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior that Deviram Batham was admitted in Birla Hospital on 8-1-2014 he consumed some poisonous substance. He was abused and threatened by accused Manoj Sharma because of which he consumed poison. He died on 10-1-2014 at 04:30 P.M. during his treatment. Therefore, Merg No. 02/2014 was registered under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. During inquiry, it is found that deceased Deviram was serving in the ITI, Gwalior as Watchman (Chokidar). He was allotted Quarter No. I-5, in which deceased Deviram and his family members were residing. Accused Manoj Sharma is a Clerk in the ITI, Gwalior. He was rebuking the deceased Deviram for vacating the quarter and allegedly was demanding money. It is alleged that petitioner Manoj threatened Deviram to vacate the house. He threatened to kill him if reports the matter to the Police. In the same evening, Deviram came to his home at 05:00 P.M. He was staggering. He was not well and was vomiting. He told his family members that he was threatened by Manoj Sharma to vacate the house and it was Manoj Sharma who harassed him. Because of which, he had consumed poison. Therefore, Police Station Gola Ka Mandir added section 306 of IPC. It is also alleged that during the course of enquiry, a suicide note was also discovered, in which allegedly the deceased has written that the accused Manoj Sharma was demanding money, which he was unable to pay as his salary was very meagre. This letter was seized from Laxman Batham on 10-1-2014. 5. An application under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court. The same was dismissed on 3-12-2014. This letter was seized from Laxman Batham on 10-1-2014. 5. An application under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court. The same was dismissed on 3-12-2014. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge on 29-12-2014 for offence under sections 504, 506-B read with section 306 of IPC. 6. The petitioner submitted that Manoj Sharma was serving in the ITI College as Clerk. Deceased Deviram was serving there as a Chokidar (Night Watchman). Deviram was transferred to ITI Khaniyadhana District Shivpuri by order dated 10-7-2005. He was relieved on 8-8-2005. Despite his transfer, he was not vacating the accommodation given to him. Hence, an action was initiated against him. On a letter by the Principal, ITI, Gwalior to the Competent Authority, a proceeding was initiated to vacate the house under the Public Premises Act. Vide order dated 12-9-2008, it was ordered to vacate the home by coercion. This order was to be executed by the Principal of the Central Training Centre, Birla Nagar, Gwalior. Shri G. S. Rajput, Superintendent of the Hospital of Industrial Training, Gwalior was appointed as the Coordinator. Several notices were given to the deceased for vacating the house. It is also claimed that the deceased was in the habit of consuming alcohol. There are complaints against him of misbehaving in the Industrial Training Centre Campus. On 14-2-2013 FIR was also lodged in this regard. He remained absent from duty for several days in different period, for which his salary of December, 2013 was also withheld. 7. In this background, the actions of the petitioner regarding vacating the house on behalf of the Institution was legal. The petitioner did not do anything of his own. The administrative action was being taken by the Institute against the deceased. It is also submitted that at the time of lodging the FIR on 9-1-2014, no suicide note was produced. But, after the death of Deviram, a suicide note was produced on 10-1-2014, which itself shows that a document was later prepared. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Principal of Industrial Training Centre, Birla Nagar, Gwalior, wrote a letter to Station House Officer, Police Station, Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior on 10-1-2014 narrating the whole incident and also about the misconducts of the deceased and withholding of his salary for the month of December, 2013. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Principal of Industrial Training Centre, Birla Nagar, Gwalior, wrote a letter to Station House Officer, Police Station, Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior on 10-1-2014 narrating the whole incident and also about the misconducts of the deceased and withholding of his salary for the month of December, 2013. A report was also made to the Station House Officer on 26-4-2014 by the Principal, Government Central Training Centre, Gwalior, in which the Principal has made it clear that the said quarter was being vacated by adopting the legal procedure. The order of the Competent Officer under the Public Premises Act was passed on 12-9-2008. 8. These documents were annexed with the application under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court by its order dated 3-12-2014 rejected the same and framed charge on 29-12-2014. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor for the prosecution opposed the same and stated that the petitioner was harassing the deceased for illegal gratification and was constantly harassing him, because of which the deceased took the extreme step. Petitioner's plea that he was acting bona fidely is not correct. Actions of the petitioner prompted the deceased to end his life. This amounts to instigate and to abet the commission of suicide. 10. Shri Prem Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, claimed that, because of the harassment by the petitioner, the deceased has committed suicide by leaving a "suicide note". Thus, the order dated 3-12-2014 and subsequent order dated 29-12-2014 by which the charges have been framed do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 11. On perusal of the statement of Laxman Batham, the son of the deceased, it is observed that on 8-1-2014 at about 11:00 A.M., the deceased met with the petitioner near the cycle stand, where the petitioner rebuked the deceased and the deceased was abused for vacating the house. He also threatened him of his life if he lodges any report against the petitioner. This action of the petitioner prompted him to commit suicide. 12. For making out an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is 'abetment' by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. He also threatened him of his life if he lodges any report against the petitioner. This action of the petitioner prompted him to commit suicide. 12. For making out an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is 'abetment' by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal 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." 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. On examining the facts of the present case, as it is, it appears that the petitioner has not goaded or urged or provoked or incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. He merely asked the deceased to vacate the house illegally occupied by him. The petitioner never intended that deceased should commit suicide. The suicide note is discovered on 10-1-2014. This note was recovered from Laxman Batham. He has not mentioned in the FIR which was lodged on 9-1-2014. It does not find place in his statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code recorded on 9-1-2014. But, surprisingly the same was recovered from the custody of Laxman Batham creates suspicion. He was also not cleared that from where he found the suicide note. 16. It is also seen that the "suicide note", which has been allegedly written by deceased Deviram, has not been supported by any other witness or by any handwriting expert. In the said suicide note also, it is alleged that the petitioner was demanding money from the deceased and uttered obscene words for not vacating the government accommodation. Nothing more has been written in the suicide note. In the said suicide note also, it is alleged that the petitioner was demanding money from the deceased and uttered obscene words for not vacating the government accommodation. Nothing more has been written in the suicide note. Therefore, ingredient of section 107 of Indian Penal Code is not fulfilled. 17. That being so, there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner in any manner instigated, incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. 18. In this regard, reliance may be placed on Hariom vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (1) MPHT 108 ; Mahendra Singh and another Gayatribai vs. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731; Hukum Singh Yadav and another vs. State of M.P. reported in 2011 (5) MPHT 296 ; Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141. 19. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29-12-2014, by which charge has been framed against the petitioner under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. Before saying omega, it would be appropriate to mention here that as regarding other charges under sections 504, 506-B of Indian Penal Code, the order is not interfered with. 20. With the aforesaid, the criminal revision stands disposed of.