Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 755 (MP)

PARVAT SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2016-08-30

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been filed for quashing the FIR registered by P.S. Rehli, District-Sagar, in Crime No. 364/2015 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner/accused Parvat Singh. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Shyamsundar was trading in food-grains for a period of four years under the name and style of “Shyam Enterprise” in a rented shop at ward No. 11, Rehli, District-Sagar. When he started his trade, he had kept his most trusted friend accused Parvant in the shop for assistance. Parvat Singh used to sit in the shop on behalf of deceased Shyamsunder and used to receive and disburse the money. He maintained all accounts of the shop. About a year before the date of incident, he took about 8-10 lakhs rupees and left the shop. He did not give any account to deceased Shyamsunder. When Shyamsunder asked him for accounts and return of the money taken by him, he refused to do so. On numerous occasions, when Shyamsunder insisted on accounts and the return of amounts due to him, petitioner Parvat Singh used to insult and humiliate the deceased and said that he would not return the money and if the deceased wanted to die, he could do so. As a result of this persistent obstinacy on the part of the petitioner/accused Parvant Singh and on being harassed by him, the deceased committed suicide by consuming a poisonous substance on 4-11-2014. A suicide-note was recovered from his possession which read as hereunder : 3. Inviting attention to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if all allegations made against the petitioner are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, his act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide. 4. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had breached the trust reposed in him by the deceased and had embezzled a large amount. He refused to give accounts and return any amount. As a result the deceased was heart-broken. He was under severe mental stress, resulting in commission of suicide. 4. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had breached the trust reposed in him by the deceased and had embezzled a large amount. He refused to give accounts and return any amount. As a result the deceased was heart-broken. He was under severe mental stress, resulting in commission of suicide. It has further been submitted that the investigation is on and the suicide note left behind by the deceased has been sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for the purpose of comparison of handwriting of the deceased. It has also been stated that his viscera has been sent for chemical examination for the purpose of detection of poison. 5. A perusal of the suicide note appended to the case diary reveals that though the deceased has named the accused as a person who is squarely responsible for his suicide, it is obvious that the petitioner was a business associate of the deceased and in the opinion of the deceased, he had embezzled a large amount from the business and had refused to give any accounts. He had also suffered losses in the business on account of gramseed vehicles. His borrowers were refusing to part with money and his creditors were persistently harassing him for returning the amount. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid circumstances, he felt trapped and betrayed and committed suicide. Even if we proceed on the assumption that the suicide note seized by the police, is in the handwriting of the deceased and he had consumed poison, the question would still remain whether the acts and conduct of the accused would fall under the ambit of abetment to commit suicide. 6. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows : “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 : “107. Abetment of a thing. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder : “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 vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2001(2) BLJ (S.C.) 113 = (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 vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) 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, Indian Penal Code 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 vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001(2) BLJ (S.C.) 113 = (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 vs. 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 vs. 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. Likewise in the case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P., 2009(2) M.P.L.J. 147, it was held that where the deceased committed suicide as a result of fraud practice upon him by his business partner and his resultant inability to repay his creditors, no case for abetment to commit suicide is made out. 14. In the instant case, on the basis of the material available on record, the deceased seems to have committed suicide because he felt betrayed by his best friend, who had misappropriated his money and even refused to give accounts for the same. It is not clear whether aforesaid perception of the deceased was based on facts or not. The nature of financial relationships between the two is not clear from the statements of witnesses. Police has also not collected any documents which would throw any light upon the nature of financial arrangement between the deceased and the petitioner. It is not clear whether aforesaid perception of the deceased was based on facts or not. The nature of financial relationships between the two is not clear from the statements of witnesses. Police has also not collected any documents which would throw any light upon the nature of financial arrangement between the deceased and the petitioner. It appears from the suicide-note that being inexperienced in the ways of business, he seems to have badly mismanaged his affairs. Being a naive and trusting type, he suffered severe, emotional and mental stress when he felt that he was defrauded by the accused and his other borrowers. His creditors on the other hand persistently harassed him for money. 15. However, the situation wherein the deceased found himself, he had several legal and legitimate options upon to him. One of them obviously was to have prosecuted the petitioner and sued his borrowers for the amount due to him but instead of taking recourse to legal options, he took the escapist route and committed suicide. It is true that the Vijayanti Bai, wife of the petitioner has vaguely stated that on numerous occasions, the petitioner declared that he would not return the money and the deceased could die if he wanted to. However, the petitioner had no control over the life of the deceased. The Supreme Court in the cases of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P., 1995 SCC Supp. (3) 438, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 and Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttranchal, 2012 Cr.L.J. 4925 (SC) has held that such exhortation to die in the heat of the moment without any real intent to instigate the deceased, does not amount to abetment of suicide. 16. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for abetment of suicide by the deceased because ingredients of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are missing in the incident. The deceased seems to have committed suicide not as a result of any abetment by the petitioner but as a result of a flaw in his mental make-up and his inability to face adversity in life, for which the petitioner cannot be held legally liable. 17. The deceased seems to have committed suicide not as a result of any abetment by the petitioner but as a result of a flaw in his mental make-up and his inability to face adversity in life, for which the petitioner cannot be held legally liable. 17. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner should not be made to undergo the rigmarole of the criminal trial; as such, the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court reserved under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is called for and consequently this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. 18. The first information report of Crime No. 364/2015 dated 11-7-2015 registered against petitioner Parvat Singh is hereby quashed. 19. It is made clear that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for any offence, other than section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, if made out.