SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(MP) 506

2002 (2) JLJ 275
(SUPREME COURT)
M.B. Shah and H.K. Serna, JJ.
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 572 of 2002; against the order of M.P. High Court passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 4125 of 2001; affirming the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, passed in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 1998; Decided on 1.5.2002.

Advocates:
R.P. Gupta with J. Bey and Pannanand Gaur for appellant;
B.S. Banthia for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 306 and 107 -- abetment of suicide -abusive words hurled at deceased not direct cause for suicide -- charge for offence under cannot be framed.

       Appellant is the brother of Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased Chander Bhushan. ... Immediately after marriage she was subjected to continuous ill-treatment by the deceased and the family members forcing her to live separately along with her husband and children for about a year. Thereafter, she went to her parents‘ house and started living with her brother, the appellant herein. About two months prior to the incident, the appellant advised the deceased to take his sister back to her matrimonial house and treat her properly. On 25th July, 1998 (crucial date), it is stated that the appellant visited the place of the parents of the deceased and pleaded with them that his sister should be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home and should not be physically ill-treated or harassed. It is also alleged that on that day the appellant is also said to have threatened the parents of the deceased that if they do not mend their behaviour towards his .sister, he would be. compelled to resort to filing a complaint under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. ‘" On this story being narrated to the deceased by the mother of the deceased, asking him to bring back his wife to avoid any police case against them, the deceased went to the house of the parents of the appellant followed by a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the deceased returned alone and told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words.

       On the next day i.e. 27th July, 1998, the deceased was found hanging with a rope by neck on the rafter of his house and he was found dead. The deceased also left a suicide note on a stray piece of wrapping paper. [Paras 5 & 6

       Held: Both the Courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July. 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased ‘to go and die‘. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die‘, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation‘. The word ‘instigate‘ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased has taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language which had been used by The appellant on 25th July, 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. [Para 13

       Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26th July, 1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th July, 1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26th July, 1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July 1998. 2001(2) BLJ 113 (SC), 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438 and 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731 relied on. [Para 15

       (2) Penal Code, 1960 -- S. 306 -- word uttered in a fit of anger without intending the consequences actually to follow -- does not amount to instigation for commission of suicide. 2001(2) BLJ 113 (SC) relied on. [Para 12

       (3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 227 and 228 -- S. 306, IPC -- deceased himself responsible for his death -- no ingriedients of abetment existing -- charge cannot be framed.

       The ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under section 306, IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunk condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25th July, 1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased, and he alone, and none alse, is responsible for his death.

       ¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306 rFkk 107 && vkRegR;k dk nq"izsj.k && e`rd ls dgs x, vi‘‘kCn vkRegR;k dk lh/kk dkj.k ugha && bl vijk/k ds vkjksi dh fojpuk ugha dh tk ldrhA

       vihykFkhZ] e`rd panzHkw"k.k dh iRuh uhye lasxj dk HkkbZ gSA------ fookg ds rqjar i‘pkr~ e`rd rFkk dqVqafc;ksa us mlds LkkFk yxkrkj nqO;Zogkj djrs gq, mls vius ifr rFkk cPpksa ds lkFk yxHkx ,d o"kZ vyx jgus dks foo‘k fd;kA rRi‘pkr~ og vius ekrk&firk ds ?kj pyh xbZ rFkk vius HkkbZ] vihykFkhZ] ds lkFk jgus og vius ekrk&firk ds ?kj pyh xbZ rFkk vius HkkbZ] vihykFkhZ] ds lkFk jgus yxhA ?kVuk ls yxHkx nks iwoZ vihykFkhZ us e`rd dks lykg nh fd og vihykFkhZ dh cgu dks okil mlds llqjky ys tk, rFkk mlds lkFk mfpr O;ogkj djsA 25 tqykbZ 1998 ¼fu.kkZ;d fnukad½ dks] dfFkr gS fd vihykFkhZ e`rd ds ekrk&firk ds ?kj x;k rFkk muls ;kpuk dh fd mldh cgu dks llqjky esa iqu% izfrf"Br fd;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk mlds lkFk ‘kkjhfjd :i ls nqO;Zogkj vFkok mls rax ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr gS ml fnu vihykFkhZ }kjk e`rd ds ekrk&firk dks ;g /kedh nh tkuk Hkh dfFkr gS fd ;fn mUgksaus mldh cgu ds lkFk viuk O;ogkj ugha lq/kkjk rc og Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu ifjokn Qkby djus dk vkJ; ysus dks ck/; gks tk,xkA------- e`rd dh ekrk }kjk e`rd dks ;g ckr crk dj ;g djus ij fd muds fo#) iqfyl ds ekeys ls cpus ds fy, og viuh iRuh dks ykSVk yk,] e`rd vihykFkhZ ds ekrk&firk ds ?kj x;k tgk¡ muds chp >xM+k gqvkA rRi‘pkr~] e`rd us vdsys ykSV dj vius HkkbZ rFkk vU; ifjfprksa dks crk;k fd vihykFkhZ us mls /kedk;k vkSj xanh Hkk"kk iz;qDr dj mls vi‘‘kCn dgsA

       vxys fnu] vFkkZr~ 27 tqykbZ 1998 dks e`rd xys esa jLlh Mky dj vius ?kj dh Nr dh dM+h ls yVdk ik;k x;k og e`r voLFkk esa ik;k x;kA e`rd us os"Vu&dkxt ds NksVs&ls VqdM+s ij vkRegR;ki= Hkh NksM+k FkkA ¿ iSjk 5 ,oa 6À

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nksuksa fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHk;kstui{k dh ;g dgkuh xyr :i ls Lohdkj dh xbZ gS fd e`rd dh vkRegR;k ml >xM+s dk lh/kk ifj.kke gS tks 25 tqykbZ 1998 dks gqvk rFkk ftleas vfHkdfFkr gS fd vihykFkhZ us xkyh&xykSp dh Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx fd;k Fkk rFkk fooj.kkuqlkj] e`rd ls *tkvks] ej tkvks* dgk FkkA------- ge vfHk;kstui{k dh bl dgkuh dks Lohdkj Hkh dj ysa fd vihykFkhZ us e`rd ls *tkvks] ej tkvks* dgk Fkk] rc Hkh Lo;a bl ckr ls *mdlkbV* dk la?kVd xfBr ugha gksrkA ‘‘kCn *mdlkus* ls mn~nhiu djuk |ksfrr gksrk gSA vr%] vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr dh fo|ekurk mdlkgV dh vko‘;d lgxkeh gSA ;g lkekU; Kku gS fd fd >xM+s ds nkSjku vFkok {kf.kd vkosx esa dgs x, ‘‘kCn vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr ls dgs x, ugha ekus tk ldrsA og Øks/k rFkk Hkkouk ds vkos‘k esa dgs x, gksrs gSA f}rh;r% dfFkr :i ls e`rd dks dgs x, vfHkdfFkr vi‘‘kCn] 25 tqykbZ 1998 dks >xM+s ds ifj.kkeLo:i FksA e`rd 27 tqykbZ 1998 dks Qk¡lh ij yVdk ik;k x;kA ;g /kkj.kk djsa fd e`rd us xkyh&xykSp dh Hkk"kk dks xaHkhjrk ls fy;k Fkk] rc mls bl chp esa fopkj rFkk fparu djus ds fy, i;kZIr le; Fkk] vr%] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihyhFkhZ }kjk 25 tqykbZ 1998 dks iz;qDr xkyh&xykSp dh Hkk"kk ds dkj.k e`rd vkRegR;k djus dks izsfjr gqvkA 27 tqykbZ 1998 dks e`rd dh vkRegR;k 25 tqykbZ 1998 dsk vihykFkhZ }kjk dgh xbZ xkyh&xykSp dh Hkk"kk ls vklé ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 13À

       e`rd dh iRuh uhye lasxj us vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ds v/khu dFku fn;kA mlus dgk fd e`rd lnk efnjkiku ls eXu jgrk Fkk rFkk og dk;Zjr ugha FkkA mlus ;g Hkh dgk fd 26 tqykbZ 1998 dks mldk ifr muds ikl e|i voLFkk esa vk;k Fkk rFkk mlus uhye rFkk dqVqac ds vU; lnL;kas dks vi‘‘kCn dgs FksA ;fn vfHk;ksstui{k dh dgkuh ij fo‘okl fd;k tk, rc nf‘kZr gksrk gS fd e`rd rFkk vihykFkhZ ds chp >xM+k 25 tqykbZ 1998 dks gqvk Fkk rFkk ;fn e`rd 26 tqykbZ 1998 dks fQj ml ?kj ij okil vk;k Fkk rc ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd e`rd }kjk vkRegR;k ml >xMs+ dk lh/kk ifj.kke Fkh tks 25 tqykbZ 1998 dks gqvk FkkA 2001¼2½ ch ,y ts 113 ¼mPpre U;k-½ 1995 lIyh- ¼3½ ,l lh lh 438 rFkk 1995 lIyh- ¼3½ ,l lh lh 731 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 15À

       ¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306 && Øks/kkos‘k esa] okLro esa vkxkeh ifj.kke ds vk‘k; ds fcuk dgk x;k ‘‘kCn && vkRegR;k djus ds nq"izsj.k dhs dksfV esa ugha vkrkA 2001 ¼2½ ch ,y ts 113 ¼mPpre U;k-½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 12À

       ¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 227 rFkk 228 && /kkjk 306] naM lafgrk && e`rd Lo;a viuh e`R;q ds fy, mÙkjnk;h && nq"iszj.k ds la?kVd fo|eku ugha && vkjksi fojfpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       izLrqr ekeys esa naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 306 ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, nq"izsj.k ds la?kVd iw.kZr% vfo|eku gSA iRuh ds dFku esa gS fd e`rd lnk e|i voLFkk esa jgrk FkkA ;g lkekU; Kku dh ckr gS fd vR;f/kd e|iku O;fHkpkj dh vksj ys tkrk gSA vr%] ;g Li"Vr% izdV gS fd 25 tqykbZ 1998 dks gq, >xMs+ ls vlac)] ftlesa vihykFkhZ }kjk xkyh&xykSp dh Hkk"kk iz;qDr dh tkuk dfFkr gS] e`rd vius gh vkpj.k dk f‘kdkj gqvk FkkA vfHkys[kxr lkexzh rFkk ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij lexz :i ls fopkj djus ij ;g vizfrjks/; fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd e`rd gh] dsoy ogh vkSj vU; dksbZ ugha] viuh e`R;q ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gSA

        ¿ iSjk 15À

ORDER

Serna, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. B.S, Banthia, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.

3. The appellant felt aggrieved by an order dated 2nd July 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in Sessions trial No. 469 of 1998 whereby the appellant has been chargesheeted for an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge before' the High Court without any result, hence the' appeal.

4. Basic facts may be noted.

5. Appellant is the brother of Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased Chander Bhushan @ Babloo. It is stated that the marriage between the sister of the appellant and the deceased took place in 1993. It is also stated that immediately after marriage she was subjected to continuous ill-treatment by the deceased and the family members forcing her to live separately along with her husband and children for about a year. Thereafter, she went to her parents' house and started living with her brother-the appellant herein. About two months prior to the incident, the appellant advised the deceased to take his sister back to her matrimonial house and treat her properly. On 25th July, 1998 (crucial date), it is stated that the appellant visited the place of the parents of the deceased and pleaded with them that his sister should be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home and should not be physically ill-treated or harassed. It is also alleged that on that day the appellant is also said to have threatened the parents of the deceased that if they do not mend their behaviour towards his sister, he would be compelled to resort to filing a complaint under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, to which the parents of the deceased expressed helplessness as the deceased Chander Bhushan had been living separately from them. It is further stated that on this story being narrated to the deceased by the mother of the deceased asking him to bring back his wife to avoid any police case against them, the deceased went to the house of the parents of the appellant followed by a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the deceased returned alone and told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words.

6. On the next day i.e. 27th July, 1998, the deceased was found hanging with a rope by neck on the rafter of his house and he was found dead. The deceased also left a suicide note on a stray piece of wrapping paper. The autopsy on the body of the deceased was held on 27th July, 1998 itself and it was revealed that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, within 24 hours. The investigating officer recorded statement of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC and after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet and a charge was framed on 2nd July, 2001 against the appellant for an offence• under section 306 IPC.

7. Section 107, IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

8. Before we advert further, at this stage we may notice a few decisions of this Court, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case.

9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and another [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the appellant was charged for an offence under section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commi





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top