Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 311 (MP)

Praveen Vaishya v. State of M. P.

2016-04-18

D.K.PALIWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397/401 of the CrPC against the order passed by VI ASJ, Indore in S.T. No.951/15 whereby the charge under section 306/34 has been framed against the applicants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Krishnagopal s/o Ramkishore was taken to hospital for treatment. During treatment, on 15.2.2015 at about 15:45 hours he died. The information was sent to the police station on which marg intimation was recorded. During inquiry it was found that Shilpi, daughter-in-law of the deceased had lodged a report at the behest of his maternal uncles Pradeep Vaishya and Praveen Vaishya, resident of Katni against the deceased and his wife Madhu and son Siddharth of Domestic Violence and harassment and case was pending in the court at Katni. Pradeep and Praveen used to harass Krishnagopal at Indore and gave threatening to the deceased that they would get convicted the deceased, his wife and son. Due to the harassment given by applicants Pradeep and Praveen, Krishnagopal committed suicide. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court has framed the charge under section 306/34 of the IPC in S.T. No.951/15, being aggrieved the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that prima facie there is no evidence to frame charge under section 306/34 of the IPC. No specific allegation has been made against the applicants regarding instigation or abetment to commit suicide. It is further submitted that deceased Krishnagopal was residing at Indore whereas the applicants are residing at Katni which is far away from Indore. Since 28.4.2013 till the death of deceased applicants have never met the deceased nor given any threatening. There is no telephonic conversation between the deceased and applicants since last 2 months prior to the death of deceased. The FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive as a counter blast to the case filed by the applicant No.3, hence it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and applicants be discharged. 4. Learned Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel and perused the record. 6. Smt. Madhu Khandelwal, wife of deceased in her case diary statement has stated that marriage of her son was solemnized with Shilpi. 4. Learned Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel and perused the record. 6. Smt. Madhu Khandelwal, wife of deceased in her case diary statement has stated that marriage of her son was solemnized with Shilpi. After marriage, Shilpi went to Katni to reside with maternal uncles, Pradeep Vaishya and Praveen Vaishya and at the behest of her uncles, she filed a false case of demand of dowry and domestic violence. Pradeep and Praveen told her husband that they have won the case and his wife and son is going to be jailed. He has no right to live. Her husband told her that Shilpi and her maternal uncles used to harass him. Brajesh Gupta, Mukesh Mittal, Sadhna Gupta and Seeta Khandelwal in their statement have repeated the same allegation. Shivratan Khandelwal in his statement has stated that on 26.4.2014 Krishnagopal met him. He was very disturbed, when he asked the reason, then he told that in-laws of his son were saying that his son and wife would be convicted. On 14.2.2015, Sushil Agrawal informed that Krishnagopal is admitted in hospital, then he went to the hospital then Krishagopal told that relative of doctor sahab told that he has lodged a case at Katni and nobody can stop his wife and son being jailed, on account of which he has taken this step. Amishree in his statement also stated that Sadhna telephoned her when she reached her home, she saw Krishnagopal was lying on the bed, she told that Krishnagopal had consumed poisonous substance, when she asked why he consumed piosonous substance, he told that ‘save his son Sheru @ Siddharth. 7. For making out an offence under section 306 of IPC, one essential and requisite ingredient is ‘abetment’ by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. section 306 of IPC reads as under : “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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. section 306 of IPC reads as under : “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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code ‘abetment’ is constituted by : (i) Instigation a person to commit an offence; or (ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit; 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 means of language, direct or indirect whether its 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.” 8. Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State of Madras, reported in 2011 CrLJ 1900 , has held as under : “This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [ (2009)16 SCC 605 ], had an occasion to deal with aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 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 are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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/she committed suicide.” 9. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001(2) BLJ 113= (2001)9 SCC 618 ], a three Judges Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the case of similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellanthusband uttered ‘you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like’. Thereafter the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. This Court in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under : “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, 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 or 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on a decision in the matter of Nanhelal Verma v. State of M.P. [ 1999(II) MPWN 77 ], Rameshchandra v. State of M.P. [2001(I) MPWN 21], Chandrashekhar v. State of M.P. [1998(I) MPWN 158], and Rajendra Kumar Dalke v. State of M.P. [ 2000(2) JLJ 405 ], submitted that there is a prima facie evidence against the applicants creating a situation of no return compelling the deceased to end his life, therefore learned trial court has rightly framed the charges. 11. 11. In the aforementioned cases, it is held that at the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 12. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao [2012 AIR SCW 5139], the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of CrPC and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed, if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 13. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the applicants that they provoked, incited or goaded the deceased or even encouraged him to commit suicide, however the allegation is that applicants had so frightened the deceased that he took a step to end his life as an escape route but it cannot be the way available for him. Suicide is an action of weak mind, deceased could have faced the threat and could have gone to the police. He was in his house when he committed suicide. Applicants are resident of Katni, so it is not inferred from these circumstances that applicants had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that there is absolutely no material on record to frame the charges against the present applicants and learned trial Court has committed error in framing the charges. 15. In the opinion of this court, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that there is absolutely no material on record to frame the charges against the present applicants and learned trial Court has committed error in framing the charges. 15. In the opinion of this court, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2015 passed by VI ASJ, Indore in S.T. No.951/2015 framing the charge is hereby set aside and applicants are discharged from the charge under section 306/34 of the IPC. Criminal revision is accordingly disposed of.