Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 756 (MP)

Badri Prasad Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2024-12-05

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2024
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, the matter was heard on 24.10.2024 at length and today the order is being pronounced. 2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC by the petitioners seeking the following relief:- It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to allow this petition and quash and set aside the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners in Crime No.646/2022 by Police of Police Station-City Kotwali Satna, District-Satna (M.P.) under sections 306, 34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The encapsulated facts of the case are that the incident is said to have taken place between 6.10.2022 and 7.10.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 3.11.2022 alleging that the deceased was dwelling with her son in a rented premises of the petitioners. The petitioners’ son and the deceased became close which led to a relationship and later to a preganancy, that was terminated. Albeit, as per the allegations, the son of the petitioners started blackmailing the deceased on the anvil of her aberrant and obscene videos and photographs. It is alleged the incident was known by the petitioners but rather dissuading they persuaded their son. The deceased felt so mentally and physically harassed, that she took her life by hanging. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sanguinely pinpointing the demeanour of the deceased submitted that the deceased got disoriented in her affair with the petitioners’ son, who impregnated her and such pregnancy was got terminated and she herself was unsure/confused about her directionless life. He further submitted that there was no element of direct abetment by the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide and therefore the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was not at all made out against them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the contents of the FIR and the material collected by the prosecution, it is clear that it is not a case of section 306 of IPC inasmuch as there is no material to show that at any point of time the petitioners asked the deceased to commit suicide or was there any abetment on their part compelling the deceased to commit suicide. To reinforce, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Asha Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. To reinforce, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Asha Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. rendered in Crl.M.C. 1411/2023 on 9.4.2024 and the decision of this court passed in Cr.Rev. No.329/2022 (Anju Raidas & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another) on 7.5.2024. He also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.654/2017 on 3.10.2024. 5. In contrast, learned counsel appearing for the respondentState submitted that on the face of the allegations made in the FIR and the material gleaned by the prosecution, like -videos, it is clear that the petitioners have rightly been made the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that rather than discouraging their son, the petitioners supported him, and when the deceased asked for help, they urged her to take her own life. Thus, they have rightly been saddled with the responsibility of becoming accused in the crime. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Obviously, the FIR shows no proof that the petitioners encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. Monetarily, if it is presumed that the petitioners’ son had harassed the deceased, even then on the basis of the omnibus allegations on record, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same. The allegation made by the deceased that since the petitioners’ son harassed her physically and mentally and even after knowing that fact, the petitioners did not stop him, resultantly they will have to bear the brunt of responsibility and should also be punished because the deceased committed suicide as was left with no other option, is baseless. But, such allegation does attract the offence under section 306 of IPC against the petitioners. At this juncture, it is apposite to go through the legal position. In the case of Anju Raidas (supra), this court has considered the material ingredients for forming the offence under section 306 of IPC and also taken note of the fact that if there is no ingredient of abetment available against the accused persons showing their persuasion / abetment to the deceased before committing suicide, the offence u/s 306 of IPC is not made out. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:- 6. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also submitted that the level of harassment was too high and the deceased had no other option to get rid of that situation which ultimately compelled him to commit suicide. He has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing charge against the applicants under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that in every case of suicide, abetment is not required. According to them, if situation is so, leaving no other alternative and any other option before the deceased but to commit suicide and if suicide is committed, the offence of 306 is made out. The present case is not a case of abetment but it is a case where no other option was left before the deceased but to commit suicide and as such the impugned order framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants does not call for any interference and the revision being without any substance deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary. 9. From perusal of the contents of the suicide note alleged against the present applicants, it is clear that it does not contain any form of abetment by the present applicants but it reveals from the said suicide note that the deceased was being harassed by his wife and as such he had left with no other option but to commit suicide. As far as offence under section 306 of IPC is concerned, the material ingredients of section 306 of IPC is required to be seen, which reads 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.” From the aforesaid, it is clear that the material ingredient of offence is abetment for commission of suicide. The abetment is defined is section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing. The abetment is defined is section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do the 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.” 10. From the contents of the suicide note and the statement of witnesses, it is clear that the material ingredients of section 107 of IPC are not available in the present case and, therefore, this case is of other aspect, leaving no option before the person but to commit suicide. 11. As per the provision of section 306 of IPC and the legal pronouncement in respect of this offence, it is clear that the said offence can be formed in two situations, which are as under:- (i) There must be an abetment by the accused abetting deceased to commit suicide, meaning thereby the ingredients of section 107 of IPC must be available. (ii) Even though if ingredients of section 107 of IPC are not available, but the accused created such atmosphere that the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. 12. As per the existing facts and circumstances, the present case does not fall under the first category wherein this Court has examined whether ingredients of section 107 of IPC are available or not but it falls within the second category in which this Court has to see whether the accused have created such an atmosphere and situation before the deceased leaving no other option before him but to commit suicide. 8. In the above case, this Court also took note of various decision of the Supreme Court and observed as under- 15. The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 has almost considered the situation leaving no other option but to commit suicide and taking note of the circumstances opined that the said situation was not so under which if suicide is committed by a person, an offence under section 306 of IPC is made out:- 21. In the present case, the charge against the appellant is that he along with other two accused “in furtherance of common intention”, mentally tortured Jitendra Sharma (the deceased) and abetted him to commit suicide by the said act of mental torture. It is trite that words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring an end to his life. 22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and therefore, clause Firstly of section 107 IPC was attracted. 23. Briefly dealing with the material available on record, in the order directing framing of charge against the appellant, the learned trial court has observed as under: “In the present case the evidence shows threatening given to the deceased. One witness called Kartar Singh says that C.K. Chopra was heard saying to the deceased that the deceased had become dishonest because he was refusing to sign a paper in which the share in some joint property was shown to be 10%. On another occasion Chopra was heard by this witness to say that Chopra would ruin the deceased if he did not give up his claim for 25% and did not agree to accept 10%. Witness Padam Bahadur has stated inter alia that he overheard Jahur and Mahavir telling the deceased that Chopra had asked them to say that this was the last opportunity to sign the document and that if he wanted to live in the society he should sign the agreement or should die by taking poison. Soon thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Thus the evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which one person told the other to go and die without actually suggesting that the opponent should commit suicide. Soon thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Thus the evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which one person told the other to go and die without actually suggesting that the opponent should commit suicide. In the present case the evidence collected by the investigation suggests that the deceased had been actually pushed to the wall and the escape by committing suicide was suggested by the accused persons.” 24. In the light of the material on record, in our judgment, it cannot be said that the trial court was in error in drawing an inference that the appellant had “instigated” the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, there was ground for presuming that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC. 16. Although in the above case the Court framed the charge under section 306 of IPC and Supreme Court approved the said order on the ground that on the basis of material available on record since there was an instigation and compelling the deceased asking him to sign the agreement or should die by taking poison and soon thereafter he committed suicide but in the case at hand there is no such instigation and nobody asked deceased to commit suicide and situation was also not so critical that could not be handled. 17. The applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. passed in Appeal (Crl.) 572 of 2002 in which the Supreme Court has considered the situation and observed as under:- “A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 18. In the said case, the Supreme Court further observed that even if the prosecution story is accepted that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. However, here in this case, there was no such instigation but from the facts it reveals that there used to be quarrel between husband and the wife. 19. In Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 considering the law laid don in the case of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 observed as under:- 15. Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. 16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. 16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. 16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. 20. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Supreme Court it is clear that in the present case, the situation is not so which establishes that there was no other alternative left by the accused persons before the deceased but to commit suicide. It is also not a case that the deceased was so helpless and was not in a position to take any action against the wife and relatives. On the contrary, as per the FIR made by the wife in 2018, it was the husband who assaulted her and then she made complaint against the husband. 9. In the case of Nipun Aneja (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as under:- 22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the Courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them. 23 In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 3.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were sufficient. (b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide? (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out? (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out? (d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity. 24 The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be considered as abetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given case. 25 In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out. 10. Juxtaposing the consistent view of the Courts with the underlying facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any direct abetment made by the petitioners to the deceased leading her to see the suicide as the only escape. Nor, I find any material available which can suggest that at any point of time the petitioners abetted the deceased for committing suicide. Perhaps the thought of being defrauded or failure in affair with the petitioners’ son would have led her to cease her life. However, the offence under section 306 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioners and therefore trying them for the said offence is nothing but would tantamount to unnecessary harassment. 11. In view of the above discourse, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet filed against the petitioners in Crime No.646/2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Satna, District-Satna (M.P.) under sections 306, 34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed. 12. Needless to say that all subsequent proceedings pursuant to charge-sheet shall automatically come to an end. 13. Petition is allowed and disposed of.