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

2015 Supreme(MP) 562

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
M.K. Mudgal, J.
Bhawati Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
CRR-701-2015
Decided On : 29-06-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siddharth Datt, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondents: Pradeep Gupta, Learned Panel Lawyer.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under Section 306 of the I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

Headnote:

Abetment - Criminal Revision - Section 306 of the I.P.C. - Section 107, 306 of the IPC, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088, 2002 (5) SCC 371, 1995 SCC (Cri) 943, 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157, 2001 (9) SCC 618, 2012 (12) SCC 190, 2014 (3) MPHT 103 - The court discussed the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC and referred to various judgments to clarify the term abatement. It emphasized that instigation involves goading, urging forward, inciting, or encouraging to do an act, and mere words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. The court also highlighted that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing, and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant/accused filed a Criminal Revision being aggrieved by the order framing the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. The deceased threatened the applicant/accused with suicide, and later committed suicide. The applicant/accused pleaded lack of evidence under Section 107 of the I.P.C. against her.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the applicant/accused was not sustainable as she had not abetted the deceased in any manner to commit suicide. The court concluded that the learned trial Court had committed an error in leveling the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the applicant/accused and discharged her under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant/accused had abetted the deceased in any manner to commit suicide.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC and clarified the term abatement by referring to various judgments. It highlighted that instigation involves goading, urging forward, inciting, or encouraging to do an act, and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

Final Decision: The court discharged the applicant/accused under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. Mudgal, J.

1. The applicant/accused has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 16/2015 framing the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

2. Case diary is not available, but the copy of the 2. charge-sheet has been filed by the applicant/accused in this case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits 3. that learned trial Court has committed error in framing the charge against the applicant/accused under Section 306 of the I.P.C. because as per prosecution story when the deceased Rajabai went to a public tubewell, at 8:00-9:00 am on 31.12.2014, for taking water, the applicant/accused came there and dispute arose between them. At that time, the deceased threatened the applicant/accused that she would commit suicide because she had been insulted by her. On the same day at 1:30 pm she committed suicide by hanging herself. Counsel further pleads that the applicant/accused did not abet the deceased in any manner for committing suicide. In this case, there is lack of evidence under Section 107 of the I.P.C. against the applicant/accused. Hence, he be discharged.

4. Heard the arguments of both the parties.

5. Before going into the merits of the case this Court would like to throw light on term abatement to commit suicide. The word abatement has been defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under :-

i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or

ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or

iii. intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

A person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion in the judgment of the case Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhatisgarh 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088 to dwell in para 20 as under :-

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provide, 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 ahad 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 as instigation may 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."

7. Similarly, The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred a few judgment in 8 to 11 of the judgment in the case Sanju @ Sanjay vs State of M.P. : 2002 (5) SCC 371 to clarify the term abatement which reads as under :-

8. In Swamy Prahaladas vs. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 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 to 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 commit suicide.

9. In Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157 the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under : (SCC p. 731, para 1)

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I wa










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
whatsapp-icon Back to top