Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 362 (MP)

Omkar Lal v. State of M. P.

2017-03-10

ALOK VERMA

body2017
ORDER 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Session Trial No.127/2016 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to frame charge under section 306 of IPC. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this revision are that on 2.7.2015, dead body of the deceased Arti was found on the railway track. Initially, it was found that semen was present in her body and also it was found that somebody had physical intercourse with her prior to her death, and therefore, further investigation was carried out and the samples were sent for DNA finger printing. In the report, it was found that no semen were present in her body, and therefore, the charge under section 376 IPC was dropped. 3. So far as the charge under section 306 of IPC is concerned, it is alleged that prior to her death, she was seen going towards the railway track with the present applicant. It was alleged that the present applicant was having an affair with the deceased. He wanted to forcibly marry her. He was already married and in relation, he was nephew of father of the deceased. They advised the deceased not to meet the present applicant- Omkar, and thereafter, she stopped meeting him, and then, it is alleged that he started harassing her and also threatening her that he would defame her and due to this, the deceased was mentally upset. She expressed on many occasion that due to such harassment, she was very upset and she wanted to end her life. On the basis of statements made by all the family members expressing their doubt against the present applicant and the offence under section 306 of IPC was registered and charges were framed as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no abetment from the present applicant, due to which she committed suicide. The suicide note does not indicate any such instigation which amounted to abetment under section 107 of IPC. 5. The applicant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., reported in [ 2002(2) JLJ 275 =2002 SCC (Cri) 1141], in which, it was held that ingredients of section 107 of IPC should present for taking the act as abetment of the suicide. 5. The applicant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., reported in [ 2002(2) JLJ 275 =2002 SCC (Cri) 1141], in which, it was held that ingredients of section 107 of IPC should present for taking the act as abetment of the suicide. “Instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as “to go and die”, cannot be taken to the uttered with mens rea. 6. Placing reliance on this judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicant argues that in the present case, the present applicant was not present when the deceased committed suicide. He was living separately, therefore, it cannot be taken as abetment on his part, due to which the deceased committed suicide. 7. To see whether, the deceased committed suicide on being abetted by the present applicant, there should present one of the ingredients as stated in section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC requires either of three overt acts on behalf of the persons said to have abetted the suicide: “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.” 8. Apart from the above judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, reported at 2013 CrLR (SC) 955, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under :- “26. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.” 9. So far as the present applicant is concerned, if we apply the principle laid down in aforementioned cases, it is apparent that only a doubt was expressed against the present applicant. She was found above 18 years and not a single suicide note was left by her. There is no ample evidence to show that the present applicant committed any act which amounted to abetment under section 107 of IPC. 10. In considered opinion of this Court this revision deserves to be allowed and hereby allowed. The present applicant is discharged from charge under section 306 of IPC. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of.