Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 832 (MP)

Waseem v. State of M. P.

2015-08-12

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, this petition is decided finally. 2. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC has been filed to set-aside the impugned order dated 9.10.2014 passed by learned Second Additional Session Judge, Sironj, Vidisha in ST No.185/2014, by which charges have been framed against the petitioner under section 306 and section 456 of IPC. 3. The factual matrix remains in a narrow compass. 4. The petitioner is accused in Session Trial Court No.185/2014. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner on the ground that Sharif Khan, father of Bhuri Bee lodged a report that on 6.4.2014, at about 5:30 p.m., Bhuri Bee fallen sick, she vomited. When asked, she was unable to speak. Foul smell of pesticide was coming out from her vomit. She was being taken to hospital at Sironj, but on the way she died. On her post-mortem, the consume of poison was confirmed. Merg was lodged. During the enquiry, it was found that deceased Bhuri Bee had gone to collect wood from the house, where the wood was kept, but she did not return for quite sometime. Parveen Bee, sister-in-law of Bhuri Bee went to call Bhuri Bee, when she called her name at the house where wood was kept, the applicant who is a neighbour of Bhuri Bee, came out from the house, jumping from the terrace and fled from the spot. Parveen Bee tried to stop him, but he did not stop. Bhuri Bee came down from the terrace and went towards the house. After sometime, Bhuri Bee fell sick and started vomiting. It is alleged that Bhuri Bee might have consumed pesticide due to shame. On this background, crime was registered under section 306 read with section 456 of IPC against the petitioner. 5. Charges have been framed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj. 6. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that there was no ‘mens-rea ‘. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner for he has never abeted Bhuri Bee to commit suicide. In this context, he also argued that the evidence disclose that no abetment as defined under section 107 of the IPC is made out, therefore, no offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out. 7. In this context, he also argued that the evidence disclose that no abetment as defined under section 107 of the IPC is made out, therefore, no offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the contentions and submitted that the petitioner entered into the house with intention to commit crime. Therefore, offence under section 456 of IPC is made out. Subsequently, the petitioner’s actions instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly framed charges. 8. On perusal of the statements of Parveen Bee, the person who saw the petitioner coming out from the house, where wood was kept, it is evident that the accused petitioner was with Bhuri Bee in the house. On her call to Bhuri Bee, the petitioner came out and fled from the spot. The same version has been repeated by Jabbar Khan, father of the deceased, Rafiq Khan brother of the deceased, Guddi Bee sister of the deceased, Sharif Khan grandfather of the deceased and other witnesses Peer Khan and Nizam. None of the witnesses have said that the petitioner has instigated or incited or urged the deceased to take any drastic step. 9. It is also to be noted that immediately after the incident, the deceased consumed the poisonous substance, which resulted her sickness and vomiting. The petitioner had no occasion to meet the deceased after Parveen Bee found them alone in the said house. That being so, it can be safely said that the petitioner cannot be held liable for abetment for commission of suicide. 10. To resolve the controversy, it appears necessary to look into the provisions of section 306 and 107 of IPC section 306 of IPC reads as follows : “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.” 11. Abetment has been defined in section 107 of the IPC, which reads as follows : “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 takes 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.” 12. Considering the entire circumstances and the prima facie evidence available in the case, section 306 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner. This view is fortified by the judgment held in “Madiya @ Mahadev v. State of M.P., reported as 2006(2) JLJ 296 ”, in which it is held that : “Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.306 and 107 -- abetment of suicide -- ked ingredients of section 107 should be looked into -- any one out of three should be proved by the prosecution -- accused tried to outrage modesty of girl two days earlier -- he cannot be supposed to have instigated her to commit suicide after lapse of two days.” 13. In another similar case, decided as “Hariom v. State of M.P., reported as 2007(II) MPWN 92 = 2007(1) MPLJ 195 ”, it is held that : “Penal Code, Ss.306, 107 and 451 -- abetment to commit suicide-Proof -- the act of the accused must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under section 107, Indian Penal Code.” 14. Even on accepting the prosecution evidence in its entirety, prima facie no ingredients constituting the offence under section 306 of IPC is made out. However, there is material on record to indicate that applicant had entered the house of the complainant. The act of entering the house without permission and consent of the complainant amounts to an offence under section 451 IPC for the reason that the petitioner entered into the house which may not be a dwelling place, but a place which is used for the custody of the property, as said to commit house trespass, for the incident took place at 5:00 p.m., which is not after sun-set. Therefore, revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is partly allowed and order framing charges under sections 306 and 456 of IPC deserves to be set-aside and is set aside. Accordingly the charges framed by the trial Court against the accused for offence under sections 306 and 456 are set aside. 15. However, the learned trial Court is directed to frame charge under section 451 of IPC and to proceed according to law.