Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 114 (MP)

Bheekam v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-02-14

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2025
ORDER : Maninder S. Bhatti, J. Through this Criminal Revision under Section 397 /401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 10.1.2023 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 33/2022 by which charges have been framed against the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence which according to prosecution have been committed by the present applicant under Section 305 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is contended by the counsel that in the present case a Merg Intimation was received by the Police on 10.8.2021 at around 5:25 p.m. that the deceased had consumed poison on 29.7.2021 and ultimately died in hospital. In the said Merg Intimation it was mentioned that no postmortem was done. Thereafter statement of the relatives of the deceased were recorded on 14.8.2021 and 15.8.2021 and for the first time the relatives of the deceased levelled allegations against the applicant that as the applicant was pressurizing the deceased to enter into wedlock, the deceased under stress committed suicide and thus, the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 14.8.2021. 3. It is contended by the counsel that the applicant has been falsely implicated. There is no whisper in the Merg Intimation regarding any kind of undue pressure by the applicant. There are no allegation of any instigation at the behest of the present applicant. The applicant never instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is contended by the counsel that there are no allegations that the applicant was torturing or was mounting any undue pressure. It is contended by the counsel that even if the allegations so levelled by all the witnesses are taken into consideration on their face value, the same was not a case of enticement or instigation and thus no case under Section 305 I.P.C could have been registered against the applicant nor the charge under the aforesaid Section could have been framed and submits that the impugned order of framing of charge be set aside. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are direct allegations against the applicant. He was guilty of instigating the deceased as a result of which the deceased committed suicide and, therefore, in such circumstances, no case for interference is made out. 5. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are direct allegations against the applicant. He was guilty of instigating the deceased as a result of which the deceased committed suicide and, therefore, in such circumstances, no case for interference is made out. 5. Heard submissions and perused the record. 6. In the present case the order of framing of charge is being assailed by the applicant on the ground that the Merg Intimation dated 10.8.2021 is totally silent as regards allegation of instigation or abetment to commit suicide against the present applicant and it is the ground that the deceased had consumed poison on 7.7.2021. She remained in the hospital and ultimately died on 29.7.2021. From 7.7.2021 till lodging of the First Information Report on 14.8.2021 no effort was made by the family members to implicate the applicant and accordingly the challenge is being made to the proceedings and ensued order of framing of charges. A perusal of the record reflects that the statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Uncle of the deceased Rakesh has stated in his statement that applicant used to stop the deceased while she used to go to school and used to pressurize her to enter into wedlock. It is also stated by him that on 7.7.2021 also the applicant stopped the deceased when she was going to Market and, therefore, the deceased consumed poison in the same evening and died. Identical statements are there of mother and father and other relatives of the deceased. A perusal of the entire statements reveals that none of the witnesses has stated that the applicant was either threatening or was mounting pressure on the deceased to enter into wedlock. There are no allegations against the present applicant of threatening the deceased or coercing her. It is settled law that to bring an offence within the ambit of abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C, there has to be instigation as regards doing of a thing. Thus, it is incumbent that there has to be a direct and positive act. The Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ] held in paragraph: "45. Thus, it is incumbent that there has to be a direct and positive act. The Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ] held in paragraph: "45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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." 7. The Apex Court in paragraph 20 in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 has held 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." 8. The aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court clearly reveal that there has to be an active and direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide, having left with no other option and in absence of any direct and positive act, it cannot be said that there was abetment to commit suicide. 9. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [ (2012) 9 SCC 734 ]. The Apex Court in paragraphs 17 to 18 has held as under: 17. 9. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [ (2012) 9 SCC 734 ]. The Apex Court in paragraphs 17 to 18 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 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 513 : AIR 1991 SC 1532 ] , Surender v. State of Haryana [ (2006) 12 SCC 375 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 210] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [ (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701 : AIR 2007 SC 2457 ] and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree [ (2009) 1 SCC 554 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 578] . 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. 10 In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, if the allegations so levelled by the prosecution are taken into consideration, it would reveal that none of the witnesses even remotely indicates any allegation of instigation at the behest of present applicant compelling the deceased to commit suicide. 10 In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, if the allegations so levelled by the prosecution are taken into consideration, it would reveal that none of the witnesses even remotely indicates any allegation of instigation at the behest of present applicant compelling the deceased to commit suicide. There is no allegation of any kind of coercion or threat to the deceased by the present applicant and thus apparently, there is no direct and positive act. It is not a case where compelling circumstances were created by the present applicant which left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. There are no such compelling circumstances in the present case. It is not the case of the prosecution that the present applicant was repeatedly threatening the deceased and was pressurizing her to enter into wedlock and under such pressure the deceased committed suicide. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the material brought on record by the prosecution against the present applicant nowhere indicates any instance of instigation or abetment at the behest of the present applicant. Therefore, no case under Section 305 of INDIAN PENAL CODE could have been registered against the present applicant. 12. Resultantly, the revision stands allowed. Impugned order dated 10.1.2023 passed in S.T No. 33/2022 stands quashed. The applicant stands discharged. Bail bond, if any, also stands discharged.