Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 368 (MP)

Laxmi Bai Raghuvanshi (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2018-04-02

SHEEL NAGU

body2018
ORDER Nagu, J.-- 1. The challenge in this petition by invoking inherent powers under section 482 CrPC is to the prosecution commenced by FIR dated 21.12.2015 bearing Crime No. 663/2015 registered at Police Station Kant Guna, District Guna where the offence punishable undder section 306 IPC is alleged. 2. It is noticeable that during pendency of this case, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners where offence punishable under sections 75, 406 and 420 IPC was also alleged. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks and is permitted to withdraw this petition so far it relates to challenge to the prosecution qua offence punishable under sections 75, 406 and 420 IPC . 3.1 Accordingly the challenge in this petition is restricted to the prosecution relating to offence punishable under section 306 IPC only. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the deceased Rashmi Raghuvanshi wife of respondent No.2 Manoj Raghuvanshi aged 42 years had lent her ornaments to the neighbour, i.e., the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Laxmi Bai for wearing in the marriage ceremony. On 18.5.2015 the deceased approached the petitioner No.1 seeking return of her ornaments but her request was declined. The ornaments comprised of about 100 gms of gold. It is submitted that piqued by the said refusal of the petitioner No. 1, the deceased went back home and committed suicide by hanging herself. After filing charge-sheet, statements of the witnesses were recorded which disclosed the same allegation. 5. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged act giving rise to the suicide was not grave enough to compel any person of majority in balanced mind to commit suicide. It is further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the cause and the suicide and therefore it is prayed that the present petition may allowed and the relief claimed may be granted in favour of the petitioners. 6.1 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and as well as victim submitted that the jewellery comprised of 100 gms of gold which was very precious and extremely dear to the deceased. It is submitted that for women from rural or semi urban background, jewellery is treated to be of great value which more often than not is the only source of security in their matrimonial home. It is submitted that for women from rural or semi urban background, jewellery is treated to be of great value which more often than not is the only source of security in their matrimonial home. As such it is submitted that there was close and proximate link between the cause and suicide and therefore the petitioners are liable to face the prosecution. 7. This Court has now to first consider as to whether the allegoed act attributed to the petitioner accused is enough to establish prima facie case for constituting an offence of abetment defined in section 107 of IPC read with section 306 of IPC section 306 IPC under which the accused are charged reads as under : “306 IPC 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.” 7.1 section 107 IPC sets out as to what constitutes abetment. The section reads as follows : “107. 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. 7.2 A plain reading of the provisions of section 306 of I.P.C. reveals that to justify framing of charge under this section, the following ingredients are necessary to co-exist : (a) Death due to suicide. (b) Accused abets the commission of suicide. 7.3 In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP. [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = (2002)5 SCC 371 ], the Supreme Court observed as under : “6. (b) Accused abets the commission of suicide. 7.3 In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP. [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = (2002)5 SCC 371 ], the Supreme Court observed as under : “6. section 107 of IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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.” 7.4 The Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 12 of the said decision that the word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of means rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with means rea. The words expressed in the case before the Supreme Court were “to go and die”. As a result of such an utterance, the deceased went and committed suicide. Yet, the Supreme Court was of the view that an offence under section 306 of IPC was not made out because the element of means rea was missing. 8. In view of above it is evident that mere refusal to return the jewellery borrowed by the accused cannot be a cause to constitute an offence even on prima facie basis. 9. More so, the link between the cause (threat, instigation, conspiracy or assisting/aiding) and the suicide ought to be live and strong enough to persuade a man of ordinary prudence to be prima facie satisfied that in all probability the incident of suicide can be the outcome of threat, instigation, conspiracy or assistance/aiding extended by accused. It is further necessary that the incident of said cause and that of the suicide should be in close proximity of time. Long time gap between the two, renders the all essential link, weak. It is further necessary that the incident of said cause and that of the suicide should be in close proximity of time. Long time gap between the two, renders the all essential link, weak. 9.1 The prosecution further fails to bring on record that the deceased was suffering from some psychological or mental infirmity which made her to believe the ornaments to be dearer than her life. 9.2 Moreover it is settled principle of law that where the prosecution is based on vague allegation which cannot stand test of judicial scrutiny it should not be allowed to stand. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 is worthy of reference, relevant paragraph of which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience and ready reference. “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (c) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (d) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (e) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (f) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9.3 The absurdity of the allegation is quite apparent from bare reading of the FIR where due to refusal to return the ornaments by the accused, the deceased went home and committed suicide. In normal circumstances, the course of action available to the victim is to lodge FIR and then to follow the procedure as per law. In normal circumstances, the course of action available to the victim is to lodge FIR and then to follow the procedure as per law. Instead, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide. The extreme step taken by the deceased is because of some mental infirmity suffered by the deceased which cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The term abetement as defined in section 107 IPC requires sanctification of the two ingredients. 9.4 There is no cogent material on record to show that only because of non-return of ornaments the deceased was compelled to take extreme step. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of ‘abetment’ are absent in the instant case so as to constitute an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. 11. Accordingly, this Court relying upon the decision of Bhajan Lal (supra), and due to absurdity of the allegation made and the fact of absence of live and proximate link between the cause and suicide, is inclined to interfere in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. 12. Accordingly, the prosecution against the petitioners so far it relates to section 306 IPC pending in shape of FIR dated 21.12.2015 bearing Crime No. 663/2015 registered at Police Station Kant Guna, District Guna and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not dwelt upon any other prosecution relating to any other offence except under section 306 IPC. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information compliance.