Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 513 (MP)

PREMCHAND v. STATE OF Madhya Pradesh

2024-07-25

ANIL VERMA

body2024
ORDER : 1. Heard finally with consent. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under section 397, 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28-10-2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Javad District Neemuch in ST No. 19/2023 whereby charges under section 306 and 420 of Indian Panel Code (in short IPC) have been framed against the petitioner/accused. 2. As per prosecution story, on 25-4-2023 deceased Dhanraj committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Complainant Chandulal lodged an FIR at police station Javad by stating that deceased has given Rs. 27 Lakhs to petitioner/accused Premchand for purchasing agricultural land, but he managed to executed the registered sale deed only in the name of Premchandra and did not return the amount of Rs. 27 Lakhs along with interest. The petitioner mentally and physically harassed the deceased for non payment of amount and committed cheating with him, due to which deceased had committed suicide. Soon before his death, deceased informed Ramesh about cheating committed by petitioner with him by mentioning that he is committing suicide due to said conduct of petitioner. Accordingly offence has been registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that mere demand of borrowed amount cannot be considered as abetment of suicide. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and facts and the material available on record and in the suicide note no incriminating material has been found against the present petitioner except the omnibus allegation. Nothing on record to show that prior to incident petitioner has instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Hence he prays that the impugned order be set aside and petitioner be discharged from all charges. 4. Per contra counsel for state opposes the prayer by submitting that on the basis of prima facie evidence on record the trial Court has rightly framed charges against the petitioner. 5. Counsel for respondent No. 2 also opposes the prayer by submitting that petitioner has cheated the deceased and deceased has committed suicide due to harassment and cheating committed by petitioner. Hence the Court below has rightly framed charges against the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order and documents filed by the parties. 7. 5. Counsel for respondent No. 2 also opposes the prayer by submitting that petitioner has cheated the deceased and deceased has committed suicide due to harassment and cheating committed by petitioner. Hence the Court below has rightly framed charges against the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order and documents filed by the parties. 7. Now the question for consideration arises as to whether the impugned order passed by learned trial Court for framing of charges against the petitioner under sections 306 and 420 of Indian Penal Code is improper, illegal or incorrect. 8. So far as framing of charge under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, on the basis of FIR and statement of witnesses, there is sufficient evidence available on record to frame charge against the petitioner under section 420 of Indian Penal Code therefore, no question arises at this stage for quashment of charge under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, prior to committing suicide of deceased, he informed his relatives that petitioner has taken Rs. 27 lakhs from him for purchasing of land but neither the land was purchased in his name nor amount was returned to him. But there is nothing on record that prior to incident petitioner has instigated or abetted deceased for committing suicide. 10. For making out an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is ‘abetment’ by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “306. Abetment to commit 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. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted by: (i) Instigation a person to commit an offence. (ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit. (iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. A person is said to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation of encouragement. (ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit. (iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. A person is said to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation of encouragement. The word ‘instigate’ means of goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.” 11. Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State of Madras, 2011 Cri. L.J. 1900, has held as under: “This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , had an occasion to deal with aspect of abetment. The Court dealt the dictionary meaning of word “instigation” and “goading.” The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern in different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person is 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 and the ratio of cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, Indian Penal Code there has to be 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. In the case of Rajesh vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 9-7-2019 passed in CRR No. 3155/2011, this Court has observed in Para No. 13 as under: “13.............For framing charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the subject to commit suicide. In the case of Rajesh vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 9-7-2019 passed in CRR No. 3155/2011, this Court has observed in Para No. 13 as under: “13.............For framing charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the subject to commit suicide. It is also requires an active or direct act, which lead the deceased to commit suicide and this act must push the deceased into such a position that he sees no option except to annihilate his own life.” 13. Reverting back to the case in hand, I have gone through the evidence collected during investigation and submitted with the charge-sheet. 14. All these statement if taken in toto even then they do not constitute offence of abetment to commit suicide. No evidence is there to show that intention of petitioner to deny money back was to instigate the deceased for committing suicide. There is no cogent evidence that either by words or by any action, the petitioner has forced the deceased to commit suicide. For framing charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the subject to commit suicide. It also requires an active or direct act, which lead the deceased to commit suicide and this act must push the deceased into such a position that he sees no option except to annihilate his own life. 15. In the matter of Devendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 2007 (III) MPWN 95 suicide note contains the name of the accused petitioner undoubtedly, however the Court held that it cannot be demand of money or loan amount or the alleged threatening in connection with the demand of money cannot be said to be a provocation for committing suicide under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment of thing and involvement of instigating or intentionally aided by any act of illegal omission and, therefore, there must be willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures for a thing to be done. 16. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the framing of charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner would amount to misuse of process of the Court and would result in unnecessary wastage of valuable time of this Court and the other resources. The learned trial Court while framing the charges has not considered the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter and has mechanically framed the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Therefore, the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner cannot be sustained, but so far as the charge under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is sufficient evidence to frame this charge. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 28-10-2023 is hereby partly set aside and the charge with regard to offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code framed against the petitioner is hereby quashed and the petitioner is discharged from the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 18. It is made clear that the trial Court is free to proceed against the petitioner for the trial of offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.