Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1175 (MP)

Charka @ Gajadhar Pal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-09-21

ANJULI PALO

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the order (Annexure A-1) dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No.41/2019 by which learned trial Court has been framed charge against the applicants under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that, on 08.09.2019 a dispute arose between the accused Sintu @ Parasram Pal and Sapna, daughter of deceased, over providing a mobile phone. Due to which, on the same day at night at about 22.00 pm, the appellants caused marpeet with the deceased by means of lathis and they instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 09.09.2019 between 8 am to 9 am in the morning by hanging himself at his house. An FIR was lodged by brother of the deceased on 10.09.2020. After completion of necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the competent Court. Thereafter, charge under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. was framed against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the order of framing charge by the trial Court against the applicants under Section 306 of I.P.C. is bad in law, illegal, incorrect and improper. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted that there is no cogent and plausible evidence to indicate that the applicants abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no proof to indicate that prior to commission of suicide, the deceased had made any complaint or allegations against the applicants. The allegation made against the applicants are vague, general and frivolous, for framing of charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. Ingredients of Section 107 of the I.P.C. are missing in this case. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents available on record. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case o f M. Mohan vs. State [Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2011 decided on 01.03.2011 by the Supreme Court of India]. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No.41/2019. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case o f M. Mohan vs. State [Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2011 decided on 01.03.2011 by the Supreme Court of India]. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No.41/2019. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the applicants. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The allegation against the applicants is that they instigated the deceased to commit suicide as a result of which he committed suicide. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 , while dealing with the term 'instigation' has held as under :- "16 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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute instigation, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by goading or urging forward. The dictionary meaning of the word goad is a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts ' 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 has held as under :- "17. The dictionary meaning of the word goad is a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts ' 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734 has held as under :- "17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh ( (1991) 3 SCC 1 ), Surender v. State of Haryana ( (2006) 12 SCC 375 , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. ( (2007) 10 SCC 797 ) and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree ( (2009) 1 SCC 554 ). 18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 CrPC.' 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as under :- "6. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as under :- "6. Section 107 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. Further, in para 12 of the judgment,it is held as under:- The word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.' 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. 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 person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit 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.' 11. 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.' 11. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. 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 committed suicide.' 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kishori 7al vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as under:- "6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word instigate literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Abetted in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.' 13. Abetted in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.' 13. Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. 14. It is well established principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required and even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie show commission of offence by the applicant. No illegality could be pointed out by the counsel for the applicant in the order framing charge. 16. Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed.