The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC, there must be evidence of instigation and mens rea, and mere refusal to share property does not amount to abetment of suicide.

1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime no.258/2016 registered at Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC as well as consequential criminal proceedings.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that an information was given to the Police Station by the Community Health Centre, Shamshabad, District Vidisha to the effect that one patient (boy) was brought to the hospital as he had consumed some poisonous substance and during treatment, the said boy has expired. It is not out of place to mention here that applicant, who is the father of the boy, who had committed suicide, had taken him to the hospital. On this intimation, the police conducted marg enquiry. The dead body of the deceased Sunil Yadav was sent for postmortem. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Statements of Pratap Singh, the material father-in-law of the deceased and other maternal uncles of the deceased were recorded. It is alleged that Rukmani Bai was married to the applicant. Rukmani Bai has expired and at the time of her death, deceased Sunil Yadav was aged about 5-6 months old. After death of Rukmani Bai, the applicant i.e. father of the deceased Sunil Yadav, performed second marriage with Rekha Bai from whom he has two boys. Thereafter, the deceased Sunil Yadav was married to one Puja Bai and has a girl child. Later on, Puja Bai, who is wife of the deceased Sunil Yadav, also committed suicide. The deceased Sunil Yadav used to tell his maternal relatives that his relations with the applicant Ram Singh and stepmother Rekha Bai are not cordial and, therefore, he left his child with his maternal grand-father and went to Vidisha for doing labour work. It was alleged that on 19/11/2005, the deceased Sunil Yadav came to his house to take his belongings but his father Ram Singh/applicant and stepmother Rekha Bai did not allow him to take his belongings and it was alleged that the father and the stepmother of the deceased was not giving the share in the property to the deceased Sunil Yadav and because of harassment at the hands of the father and stepmother, the deceased has committed suicide.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it is clear that prima facie there is no ingredient of abetment and, therefore, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out. The conduct of the applicant cannot lead to an inference that the applicant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 731.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that according to the prosecution case, the deceased Sunil Yadav was demanding his share in the property and on 19/11/2015, he came back to his house, to take his belongings but the applicant did not allow the deceased to take his belongings with him, as a result of which the deceased was left with no other option but to put to an end of his life and, therefore, at this stage, it can be inferred that the applicant and the co-accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The moot question is that even if the entire allegations are accepted as they are, then whether can it be said that the applicant has committed an offence of abetment of suicide.

Section 306 of I.P.C. reads as under :

“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.”

“Abetment” is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which reads as under :

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instig