IMPORTANT POINT:
Merely because petitioners were pressurizing victim deceased for money which deceased had lost in playing match or that amount was heavy and deceased committed suicide, petitioners could not be said to have instigated, incited or provoked deceased to commit suicide and they could not be charged with offence u/s 306 IPC.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Palo, J.—Heard.

The brief facts just necessary for disposal of this case are as follows:-

The petitioners were alleged to have demanding their money from the deceased Mohan Soni. Mohan Soni committed suicide leaving a suicide note. This note was recovered after two months.

2. In the suicide note, the deceased Mohan Soni mentioned that the petitioners Vivek Kumar Jain and Ashish Kumar Jain were pressurizing him for the money which the deceased lost in playing MCH match. For which he gave Rs.15,00,000/- to petitioner Ashish Kumar Jain and Rs.18,00,000/- was given to petitioner Vivek Kumar Jain. Besides this, the petitioner took gold worth Rs.5,00,000/- and cash Rs.4,00,000/- from the deceased. Because of this, the deceased committed suicide. On the basis of which Crime No.575/2013 under Section 306 IPC has been registered at Kotwali, District Guna (M.P.). It would be appropriate to understand the provisions of Sections 306 of IPC which reads as under:-

“Section 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.”

It is also necessary to understand what actual constitute “abetment”. “Abetment” has been defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as follows:-

“Section 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 doding 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 wilful 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

3. In a similar case this High Court has analyzed the word “abetment of suicide”. In Ram Naresh and another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2002 (2) M.P.H.T. 183. in which it is held that,

“The accused persons were charge-sheeted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal) death. However, it was found that none of the accused had goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. They merely goaded him to refund/repay the amount of loan advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report. In that case, he could have moved higher officials. But instead of taking this legal and legitimate action, the deceased adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for alleged commission of the offence was made out against the accused persons.”

4. In the case of Radhesyam Vs. State of M.P., 2014 Cr.L.R.(M.P.) 416. it is held that,

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sec. 397/401-Order of framing charge u/s. 306 I.P.C. —No evidence of abetment to commit suicide—Money borrowed to the deceased and demanding back of money was not an act of harassment— Demand of loan amount is not an abetment u/s 107 I.P.C.— Words uttered in heat of moment does not amount to abetment