Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 189 (MP)

Suresh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2020-02-06

SHEEL NAGU

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioners herein are accused in FIR dated 12.3.2019 bearing Crime No. 275/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali Morena, District Morena alleging offences punishable under sections 306, 34 of IPC arising out of suicide committed by one Jitendra Sharma aged 36 years (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") by hanging himself. 2. Brief facts as alleged giving rise to the present petition are that complainant Girraj Sharma lodged an FIR to the effect that petitioners got the land of his cousin i.e. deceased mortgaged with one Narendra Yadav and thereafter petitioner Suresh purchased it and got registered in the name of his sons, however, sale consideration amount of Rs. 90,000/- was not given to the deceased. When deceased asked petitioners for said amount, the petitioners not only declined to oblige but also harassed the deceased to the extent that deceased committed suicide by hanging himself without leaving behind any suicide note. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the available material on record and the evidence placed by the prosecution before the learned trial Judge in shape of charge-sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide. 4. The offence of section 306 IPC is directly founded upon the concept of abetment. If a person commits suicide and cause of death can be attributable to another person with the aid or instigation doing or omitting to do something individually or in conspiracy with some other person or intentionally aiding by illegal act or omission, then the person causing instigation, doing or omitting to do or aiding can be held responsible for abetment to suicide. The apex Court has succinctly explained the parameters of section 306 IPC in one of it's decisions in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 , relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code: "306. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code: "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." 10. "Abetment" has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads 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 places 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." Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under: "Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P. 1995 supp. (3) SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled were as under: "1.....My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. 12. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. 12. Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001(2) BLJ 113= (2001) 9 SCC 618 . A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The 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 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 4.1 Analyzing the facts herein on the anvil of the law laid down, it is evident that the acts alleged against the petitioners of abuse, threats and intimidation are not grave enough to compel a 36 years old man (deceased) to terminate his life. More so, the cause of threat shown on one side and suicide on the other do not have close and proximate link with each other. 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 must be the outcome of threat, instigation, conspiracy or assistance/aiding extended by accused. In the absence of any such material, mere threat by the accused cannot constitute abetment. In the absence of any such material, mere threat by the accused cannot constitute abetment. It is further necessary that the cause of suicide and the suicide should be in close proximity of time to each other. Long time gap between the two, renders all essential links, weak, vague and doubtful. 5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the considered view that the essential ingredients of 'abetment' are absent in the instant case so as to constitute an offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. 6. Consequently, petition stands allowed with the following directions : 1. FIR dated 12.3.2019 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom bearing Crime No. 275/19 alleging offence punishable under sections 306, 34 IPC registered by police station Kotwali, Morena, District Morena (M.P.) against the present petitioners stand quashed. 2. All consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR qua the petitioners also stand quashed. No cost. ...................