Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 220 (MP)

Mukesh Maina v. State of M. P.

2017-02-10

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. The applicants/accused have preferred this revision application being aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.151/2016, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under section 227 of CrPC filed by the applicants. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that one Ramgopal committed suicide on 28.2.2016 at village Mavely. The Police registered an merg report and during the enquiry, it was found that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons for the reason that the sister of the deceased Ramgopal ran away by co-accused Mukesh. Because of this incident, certain point of time there have been various hot exchange of words due to which the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Therefore, an offence under section 306 of IPC has been registered and after due investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 3. The applicants filed an application under section 227 of CrPC before the trial Court with the prayer that prima facie no offence under section 306 of IPC has been made out against them. This application has been rejected by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicants have preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no material on record which indicates the intention or acts of the applicants to stress the deceased to commit suicide. The suicide note seized by the prosecution does not reflect that any positive or overt act was done by the applicants due to which the deceased has committed suicide. Merely on the allegation that the deceased was being harassed by the applicants does not attract the provision of section 306 of IPC unless and until there is clinching evidence available on record that the harassment was of such an extent that can force the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence available on record that the applicant visited the house of deceased or have humiliated him to an extent that the deceased may commit suicide. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State submitted that ample evidence is available on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. I have considered the facts of the case and rival contentions of parties. 7. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State submitted that ample evidence is available on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. I have considered the facts of the case and rival contentions of parties. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the parties, it is appropriate to observe factual background in which the entire incident in question has taken place. It is an admitted position that sister of the deceased Ramgopal has ran away with the co-accused Mukesh and due to this, he was under high mental stress. Being humiliation, the deceased decided to end his life which are reflected from the contention of dying declaration of the deceased. 8. Although, the said facts failed to satisfy the ingredients of section 306 of IPC because the reason to commit suicide and abetment to commit suicide cannot be equated and for the purpose of section 306 of IPC it can be used simultaneously or interchangeably. The fact that the deceased committed suicide under apprehension of humiliation or loss of reputation in the eyes of people is not enough to prosecute a person for offence under section 306 of IPC unless the ingredients of section 107 of IPC is to be satisfied which are reproduced as under :- “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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another [ (2010)12 SCC 190 ], the allegations levelled were as under : “An enquiry was conducted by the Security Officer of the University, the appellant herein, regarding the theft of a mobile phone. A dispute arose between the deceased and H. The deceased committed suicide during the course of enquiry, by jumping in from of a train, leaving a suicide note. A dispute arose between the deceased and H. The deceased committed suicide during the course of enquiry, by jumping in from of a train, leaving a suicide note. In the suicide note it is stated that he did not commit the theft and he had committed suicide because he was falsely implicated in the theft case of a mobile phone.” 25. 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 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. When the appellant was in no manner connected with this case and there was no credible material to connect the appellant with the crime, it would be a futile exercise to compel him to undergo a criminal trial. 10. In the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, report in (1994)1 SCC 73 , the Supreme Court has held as under :- “This Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in (2010)I SCC 750, needs mentioned here. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in (2010)I SCC 750, needs mentioned here. In which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :- “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained – In order to convict a persons 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 leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide – Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty – Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under section 306 made out – Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable.” 12. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 , has held as under :- “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 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/she commits suicide.” 13. 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 commits suicide.” 13. Looking to the facts of the case, it is found that the alleged harassment may be caused for committing suicide but would not amount to abetment to commit the same as defined in section 107 of IPC and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no evidence with regard to provocation, incitement or encouragement for commitment of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court has committed mistake in framing charge against the applicants for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. 14. Taking this view of the matter, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is hereby set aside and the applicants are discharged from the commission of offence under section 306 of IPC.