Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 40 (MP)

Vijendra Singh Rajput v. State of M. P.

2021-01-15

AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER 1. This revision is directed against order dated 23.7.2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in S.T. No.42/2019, whereby charge of the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was framed against the petitioner. 2. The prosecution case is that on 11.2.2019 at about 9.45 PM when the applicant was going to sleep after taking the meals, at that time he heard some noise of jumping in his under construction house and he found that Jeevan (since deceased) has entered into the house of the applicant and when the applicant shouted, at that time Jeevan had run away from the spot. 3. Thereafter the petitioner informed the police and the police came and asked the petitioner to lodge a report against the Jeevan (deceased) regarding the same. Thereafter the police was searching Jeevan and police went to his house. It is alleged that on 14.2.2019 Jeevan consumed some poisonous substance and died. In his dying declaration he has made allegation against the present petitioner regarding abetment to commit suicide, therefore, a case under section 306 IPC was registered against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, challan has been filed. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 23.7.2019, charge of the offence under section 306 IPC was framed against the petitioner. He stood the trial accordingly, as he denied the imputation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence of abetment to commit suicide would be made out against him. According to him, the petitioner did not abet the deceased in any manner for committing suicide. It has been contended that there is no evidence available on record to prove abetment as defined under section 107 IPC against him. For this, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = AIR 2002 SC 1998 ] Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [ AIR 2005 SC 1775 ] and a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Mangleshwar Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2002(4) MPHT 140 ]. 5. Mangleshwar Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2002(4) MPHT 140 ]. 5. Per contra, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State and complainant have submitted that there are sufficient material suggesting involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that no interference with the order framing charge is called for as a significant progress in the trial has already been made. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the case diary. 7. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of sections 306 and 107 IPC which read as under : “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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. *** 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. Explanation1.— A person who, by willful misre-presentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 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.” 8. As per the definition given in section 107 IPC, abetment is constituted by : • Instigating a person to commit an offence; or • Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or • Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. 9. Adverting to the facts of the case, on perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased it has come on record that the petitioner had lodged a report with the police regarding theft, the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. 9. Adverting to the facts of the case, on perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased it has come on record that the petitioner had lodged a report with the police regarding theft, the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Even if the contents of the dying declaration are presumed to be correct, no offence under section 306, IPC is made out against the petitioner as he had not abetted the deceased in any manner to commit suicide. If the deceased had been assaulted or abused by the petitioner, a report would have been lodged against him for taking legal action in this regard, but no inference can be drawn against the petitioner for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, this Court finds that from the circumstances culminating in the death of Jeevan, the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under section 306, IPC. Moreover, from the attending circumstances of the case, it appears that the only reason to commit the suicide is that the petitioner reported the matter to the police regarding theft committed by the deceased, he committed suicide. In my opinion, the said act of the petitioner cannot come within the definition of cruelty so as to attract presumption under section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the well-settled position of law in the cases relied upon by the petitioner, this Court arrives at the conclusion that learned trial Court has committed an error in framing the charge under section 306, IPC against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order framing charge deserves interference under the revisional jurisdiction. 11. In the result, the revision stands allowed and the impugned order dated 23.7.2019 is hereby set aside. Instead, the petitioner is discharged of the offence under section 306 of the IPC. S.K. Shrivastava for petitioner; M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for respondents/State.