1. This petition preferred u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') calls in question the
legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in S.T. No.
76/2018, whereby charge for offence u/s. 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2018 one Dhapubai had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The intimation
regarding her unnatural death was sent to the police Station Kukdeshwar. On the basis of which police registered enquest No.15/2018 under Section
174 of of Cr.P.C. Police reached on the spot and prepared the lash panchnama of the deceased Dhapubai. Her dead body was sent for postmortem.
Police recorded the statement of Husband â€" Kanhaiyalal, Brother -In -law- Kamlesh, Father- in - Law Karulal and brother of the deceased and
other witnesses from which it was revealed that on 31.07.2018 the deceased Dhapubai went to the field however she did not returned to her house.
On search she was not found them her missing report was lodged at police Station Kukdeshwar. On the next day i.e. 01.08.2018 Dhapubai was found
on Jhalri Mendki road. She was scared, therefore, she told the police that she has gone with her own will alongwith the applicant. When the family
members interrogated her then she told them that when she was working in the filed, applicant came there and took her to Bhadvamata. After
reaching there, he was going to the side and talking to someone on telephone so she doubted that Vinod will not sell her some where, therefore, she
run away to the Bhadvamata temple and stayed there over night. The applicant had threatened her to not told anyone in the house, otherwise he will
kill her. Then on 03.08.2018 the family members of the deceased lodged the FIR against the applicant and his family members regarding threatening
however due to fear Dhapubai committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. After the enquiry of merg, police registered the offence under
Section 306 against the applicant and arrested him. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Manasa, District Neemuch, who committed the case to the Sessions Court.
3. The trial court was of the view that prima facie charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. Is clearly made out against the applicant, therefore, court
directed for framing of the aforesaid charge against the applicant vide impugned order dated 04.02.2019. Feeling aggrieved by which the applicant has
preferred this revision.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation made against applicant, even if accepted in their entirety, do not make out
a case u/s. 306 of the IPC. It is submitted that to constitute abetment within the meaning of Section 107 read with Section 306 of the IPC, there should
be instigation, provocation, incitement, suggestion, persuasion or goading to commit suicide and that, the accused must have intended that the deceased
commits suicide. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 S.C. 1998 and
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that prima-facie charge for offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against
the applicant on the basis of material available in the charge-sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Court has committed any legal or
factual error in framing the charge for offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. To constitute abetment within the meaning of Section 107 read with Section 306 of the IPC, it must be demonstrated that the accused had
instigated, provoked, incited, suggested or goaded the deceased to commit suicide and that, such result was intended by the accused. In a number of
decisions, the apex Court has considered whether assault or harassment simplicitor can amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 107 read
with Section 306 of the IPC. Each time, the apex Court has answered the issue in negative, stating that harassment or assault simplicitor cannot
amount to abetment. In this regard, we can usefully refer to the decision rendered by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.1742/2016 (Bittu @ Girriraj vs. State
of M.P., Order dated 08.03.2017, Bench Indore), wherein the legal position has been considered in the light of various pronouncements of Hon’ble
the apex Court; relevant paras whereof run as under:
9. 'Abetment to commit suicide' is an offence under Section 306 of IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and
fine. Expression ‘Abetment’ has been defined in Section 107 of IPC which runs as under :-
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. Explanation 1.-A person who, by
willful misrepresentation, 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that
act
10. In the State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 153,2 the apex Court explaining the meaning and expanse of word ‘abetment’ as used
in Section 107 of IPC, has held as under:
“Abetment†as defined by Section 107 of the IPC comprises (i) instigation to do that thing which is an offence, (ii) engaging in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, and (iii) intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Section 108 defines an abettor as a person who
abets an offence or who abets either the commission of an offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence. The word “instigateâ€
in the literary sense means to incite, set or urge on, stir up, goad, foment, stimulate, provoke, etc. The dictionary meaning of the word “aid†is to
give assistance, help etc.
11. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, a three Judge Bench of the apex Court explaining the meaning and connotation of
word ""instigation"" has held as under ( para. 20):
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.
12. Taking note of the fact that each person's suicidability pattern is different from others and that each person has his own idea of self-esteem and
self-respect, the apex Court in M. Mohan Vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2011 CRI.L.J. 1900 (S.C, .r)eferring to its
earlier decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 60, 5held that to constitute abetment, there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused.
13. Reference can also be made to the decision of the apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC)
261, wherein the allegation was that the deceased was beaten by the accused and was also subjected to harassment, due to which he committed
suicide by consuming poisonous substance. The apex Court referring to its earlier decisions in Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P., (1995)
Supp. 3 SCC 731 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 61,8 holding that offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section
306 of IPC is not made out, observed 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 sustainedâ€.
14. In Deepak V. State of M.P., 1994 Cri. LJ 767 (M.P.), the deceased girl was threatened with defamation, if she refused to have sexual intercourse
with two accused; within an hour she committed suicide leaving a suicidal note. Accepting the plea that the act of the accused might have been a
reason for committing suicide but the same did not constitute abatement within the meaning of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, it was
held that - “neither there was any intention nor any positive act on the part of the accused to instigate her or aid her in committing suicide. The two
accused persons, therefore, cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and their conviction on that count by the trial Court, is
liable to be set aside.â€
15. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 S.C. 199, 8the accused was charged under Section 306 of
IPC for abetting his brother-in-law to commit suicide; the accused allegedly said to him to 'go and die'; the deceased left behind a suicide note stating
that accused is responsible for his death. It was held that words “go and die†do not constitute instigation for mens rea of offence under Section
307 of IPC.
16. In Mahendra Singh and Anr. Vs. State of M.P., 1996 Cri.L.J. 894=1995 Supp (3) SCC 73,1 a case prior to the insertion of Section 113-A in the
Evidence Act, the charge under Section 306 IPC proceeded on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased to the effect that â€
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My
husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I
want to die by burning.â€
Considering legal sustainability of the same the apex Court held as under:
“Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 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.
Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.â€
17. From the aforesaid pronouncements of the apex Court, it flows that to constitute abetment to commit suicide, there must be material, prima-facie,
indicating that accused with a positive act on his part instigated, incited, aided or provoked the person to commit suicide.
18. In Devendra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2009) 7 SCC 495, it has been held as under:
“when the allegations made in the first information report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an
offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing.â€
8. In the case of Devendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 247, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 6 held as under:
“6. Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case, the suicide note allegedly left by the deceased indicates that the deceased committed suicide
being fed-up with his life. It also prima facie indicates that the applicant was threatening the deceased for last one month prior to the occurrence in
order to recover his money lent to the deceased. It nowhere indicates that the applicant intended that deceased should commit suicide or instigated him
to commit suicide. The consistent view of this Court as enunciated in various decisions cited above, has been that demand of money or loan does not
amount to an abetment of commission of suicide.â€
9. The facts of the case are required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid legal position. As per prosecution, the applicant took the deceased
on his motorcycle at Bhadvamata. After reached there, he was talking some one on telephone, therefore deceased anticipated that applicant will not
sold her some where, therefore, she run away from there and reached at Bhadvamata temple and stayed there over night. On the next date she was
found to her uncle Jhalri Mendki road . It is alleged that applicant had threatened her not to tell anyone in the house that he took her to Bhadvamata
otherwise he will kill her. Feeling fear from the aforesaid threatening, she committed suicide . The statement of the Husband â€" Kanhaiyalal, Brother
In law- Kamlesh, Father in Law- Karulal and brother of the deceased, did not indicate that at any point of time deceased was provoked, incited,
goaded or persuaded by the present applicant to commit suicide. Therefore, even if all the allegations made against the applicant are accepted in their
entirety, still they not make out a case u/s. 306 of the IPC.
10. The learned trial Court while framing the charge has not considered the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter and has mechanically
framed the charge. Therefore, the charge u/s. 306 of the IPC against the applicant cannot be sustained.
11. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the charge with regard to offence
u/s. 306 of the IPC against the applicant-Vinod is hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
