Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J.
Khairu @ Satendra Singh Rawat – Petitioner
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.639 of 2024
Decided on 20.8.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306 and 107 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 108 and 45 read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 228 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 251] – Abetment of suicide – Common intention – Framing of charge – As per case of prosecution, petitioner instigated his sister-in-law to commit suicide – Overt act of accused person must be of such a nature where victim had no option but to commit suicide – Even assuming that petitioner misbehaved with deceased, conduct does not fall within ambit of “incitement” or “instigation” – Offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was not prima facie made out against applicant/accused – Impugned order set aside and petitioner stands discharged.(Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “the Code”), is filed assailing the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.376 of 2023, whereby charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC is framed against petitioner Khairu @ Satendra Singh Rawat.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to this revision-petition, is as under:-
(A) As per the case of prosecution, Vikram Rawat S/o Jagdish Singh Rawat reported to Police Station Dehat Thana, Shivpuri (M.P.) on 18.06.2023 around 15:18 hours that on the same day, around 02:30 in the afternoon, he took his children for haircut to local barber shop at Neelgar square. When he returned home with children, his wife Vandana did not open the door. When he peeped inside the house through window glass, he saw that his wife Vandana was hanging with ceiling fan with the help of Saree. Vandana had died. On such intimation, Police Station Dehat Thana, District Shivpuri (M.P.) registered Unnatural Death Intimation No.26/2023 and started inquest proceedings. Dead body of Vandana was forwarded for post-mortem examination. Medical Officer opined that Vandana had died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 174 of the Code. Relatives of Vandana i.e. Phoolwati (mother), Dharmendra (father) and Ankesh (brother) alleged that Vikram and his cousin Khairu Rawat (present revision petitioner) had enticed and taken Vandana 12 years ago. Vikram performed marriage with Vandana. Vandana was residing with Vikram Rawat. They were blessed with two kids. Vandana used to complain that Vikram manhandle her after intoxication. Vikram and Khairu were harassing Vandana. Therefore, she had committed suicide due to manhandling after intoxication by Vikram and Khairu. On such allegations, Police Station Dehat Thana Shivpuri registered FIR at Crime No.211 of 2023 for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Petitioner Khairu was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri (M.P.). The case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court.
(B) Learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri vide order dated 10.01.2024 framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 against Satendra @ Khairu Rawat for constituting common intention with coaccused Vikram Rawat to harass and instigate Vandana Rawat to commit suicide in furtherance of which, Vandana had committed suicide by hanging.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid charge, this revisionpetition is filed on the following grounds:
(A) Petitioner is the maternal cousin of main accused Vikram. He occasionally visited Vikram. He is resident of village Pananair 18 kms away from residence of Vikram at Shivpuri. Vikram was married to Vandana Rawat through court marriage and they were blessed with two children i.e. a girl child presently aged around 7 years and a boy child presently aged around 9 years. Petitioner had no interference in day-to-day affairs of the family of Vikram and Vandana.
(B) There is no evidence with regard to abetment to commit suicide by the petitioner.
On such grounds, it is requested that the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 of framing charge against the petitioner be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contends that Vandana was married to Vikram 12 years ago, therefore, presumption under Section 113(a) of the Evidence Act would not apply. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation with regard to instigation to commit suicide against the petitioner, therefore, alleged offence is not made out.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, referring to the statements of parents of the deceased, contends that in vi
Abetment of suicide – Overt act of accused person must be of such a nature where victim had no option but to commit suicide.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or active participation in the act leading to suicide must be established, which was not present in this case.
Abetment of suicide under IPC requires clear mens rea and active instigation, which was not proven in this case.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or participation in suicide; mere allegations or psychological pressure are insufficient to establish abetment.
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or actions compelling the victim to take their life, not merely trivial domestic disputes.
The absence of provable instigation or direct involvement by the accused in the suicide precludes criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.
Ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. must be present to make out a case under Section 306 of I.P.C - Supreme Court has held that to constitute “instigation”, a person, who instigates another has to p....
To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of intentional abetment or instigation is required, with actions having a proximate link to the suicide.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
