Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1141 (MP)

Prince Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2016-12-13

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2016
ORDER : SHRI C.V. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioner accused Prince Sahu is directed against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District-Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 2016, whereby it has been held that there are sufficient grounds against the petitioner Prince Sahu for framing of a charge under Section 306 and in the alternative 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased was married to the petitioner Prince Sahu on 27.1.2015. Thereafter, on 01.01.2016, her father Ramesh Sahu was invited to her matrimonial home on the occasion of birthday of her sister-in-law. At that time, the deceased told her father that her husband Prince suspects her character; therefore, she was in tension whereon Ramesh Sahu spoke to the petitioner, who told him that deceased had illicit relations with one Mushahid Musalman; therefore, he does not want to keep Rashmi and Ramesh should took her back. Hence, Ramesh took Rashmi back to her maternal home on 02.01.2016. On 07.01.2016, Rashmi consumed poison. She was treated in government hospital at Sihora and Victoria hospital at Jabalpur. Rashmi told her father on 25.01.2016 that aforesaid Mushahid is an auto-driver and about 2 years before the date of the incident, he used to tease and threaten her. One day, when no one was around, Mushahid came to her home and raped her. Thereafter, on several occasions, he took her to Khadra Jungle and raped her. On learning about aforesaid matter, Ramesh Sahu lodged the FIR against Mushahid. Pursuant to the first information report, Mushahid was arrested and sent to jail. On 02.02.2016, Rashmi spoke to her husband Prince on telephone but Prince abused her and told her that he would not keep her. Three or four days after Mushahid was sent to jail, his family members Shahuddin and Kadir Mansuri and two other persons came to the house of Ramesh Sahu twice or thrice and abused him and warned him to compound the matter. They threatened that otherwise they would kill his family members. Ramesh did not lodge the report of aforesaid incident in the police station for the fear of infamy. They threatened that otherwise they would kill his family members. Ramesh did not lodge the report of aforesaid incident in the police station for the fear of infamy. At around 12 p.m. on 03.02.2016, deceased had told her father Ramesh that she felt bad about the whole matter; therefore, he should give her poison. Thereafter, she went inside the room and committed suicide by hanging herself from roof by a scarf (Dupatta). 3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 reveals that this is not an order framing charge against the petitioner. On 25.10.2016, the trial Court had heard the arguments on the charge and had recorded a finding that there are sufficient grounds for framing charge against petitioner Prince Sahu and co-accused Kadir Mansuri under Section 306 and in the alternative 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in asking the petitioner to wait for the framing of formal charge and then challenge that order. The court shall proceed on the assumption that the charge has indeed been framed against petitioner Prince Sahu pursuant to order dated 25.10.2016. 4. Placing reliance upon the several authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.10.2016 mainly on the ground that even if all allegations made against the petitioner are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, his acts or conduct would not fall within the ambit of abetment of suicide. 5. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: 6. "Section 306. Abetment of suicide. - 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 7. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder: "Section 107. Abetment of a thing. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder: "Section 107. Abetment of a thing. - 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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 8. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that: "To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it 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 had 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 an instigation may have been inferred. (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr. L.J. 2110 (SC) that: "20. 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. 21. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide"..... (Emphasis supplied) 10. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide"..... (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that: "The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred." 11. Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 3 SCC 699 , it was observed that: "The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life." 12. On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh v. State of M.P., 2005 (2) JLJ 224 observed as hereunder: More so, in this case the accused has not 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 an instigation may have been inferred. 13. Reverting back to the case at hand, we may note that though the deceased has not left behind a suicide note or a dying declaration, cause of her suicide is apparent. At the time of suicide, the deceased was 22 years old. Two years before her death i.e. at the age of 20 years, she seems to have been physically exploited by aforesaid Mushahid. After her marriage to the petitioner in the year 2015, Mushahid send text messages and photographs to the petitioner presumably indicating that the deceased had an affair with Mushahid before her marriage. These messages and photographs convinced petitioner that his wife was characterless and had illicit relations with Mushahid before the marriage. In these circumstances, he decided to sever his relations with the deceased and asked her father to take her back. These messages and photographs convinced petitioner that his wife was characterless and had illicit relations with Mushahid before the marriage. In these circumstances, he decided to sever his relations with the deceased and asked her father to take her back. It cannot be said that his doubt regarding character of the deceased was entirely baseless because subsequently, the deceased herself lodged the report of rape against Mushahid and the case is still pending. The action of the petitioner of expelling her wife from her matrimonial home may not be entirely acceptable but at least it was understandable. In Indian context, regretfully, many husbands would have reacted in much the same manner to such a provocation; however, by no stretch of imagination can it be assumed that the petitioner goaded or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. All that he wanted and said in so many words that she should be taken back to her maternal home. After her return to her maternal home, the deceased disclosed the episode with Mushahid to her father. Consequently, the FIR came to be lodged. Mushahid was arrested and sent to jail. The entire incident must have been traumatic for the deceased. The pressure tactics adopted by relatives of Mushahid compounded her misery. It is clear from the report dated 12.08.2016 lodged by Ramesh with SDO (Police), Sihora that the deceased felt intimidated by the threats held out by Shahuddin and Kadir Mansuri, family members of Mushahid and as a result of such threats, she committed suicide. 14. In aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner Prince Sahu, in any manner, instigated or goaded the deceased to commit suicide. He was simply asking the father of the deceased to take her back to her maternal home after that he had nothing to do with the deceased. Thus, it can also not be said that by his persistent conduct, the petitioner had created such a situation, wherein the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. Therefore, learned trial Court erred in holding that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner Prince Sahu under Section 306 and in the alternative 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. As such, the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 is not sustainable. 15. Therefore, learned trial Court erred in holding that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner Prince Sahu under Section 306 and in the alternative 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. As such, the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 is not sustainable. 15. Consequently, the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District-Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 2016, is set aside. 16. In the result, the petitioner Prince Sahu stands discharged in the matter.