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

2022 Supreme(MP) 434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Pradeep Sakhawar – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Another – Respondents
MCRC No. 35848 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J.S. Rathore.
For the Respondent: Naval Kishore Gupta.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving instigation and intentional aiding in the commission of suicide for abetment under Section 306 of IPC.

Headnote:

ABETMENT - Quashment of FIR under Section 306 of IPC - [Section 306 IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for instigation and intentional aiding in the commission of suicide. The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments to highlight the elements of abetment and the necessity of proving direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The judgment emphasized that mere delay in recording witness statements or the relationship of witnesses to the deceased cannot be grounds for discarding evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed for quashment of FIR under Section 306 of IPC, stating that the allegations against him were false and that the deceased could have made a complaint to the police instead of committing suicide. The State opposed the application, asserting that the applicant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant had pressured the deceased to have a physical relationship with him, leave her husband, and marry him, and had threatened to defame her in society. The court emphasized that these actions amounted to abetment of suicide.

Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of abetment of suicide, the credibility of witness statements, and the relationship of witnesses to the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for instigation and intentional aiding in the commission of suicide, as well as the necessity of proving direct or indirect acts of incitement. The judgment highlighted that delay in recording witness statements or the relationship of witnesses to the deceased cannot be grounds for discarding evidence.

Final Decision: The application for quashment of the proceedings was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 281/2021 registered at Police Station Ambah District Morena for offence under Section 306 of IPC.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of present application in short are that the FIR has been lodged against the applicant on the allegations that the applicant was pressurizing the deceased to talk to him even against her wishes and was insisting that the deceased should leave her husband and should marry him and was also insisting for physical relationship. When the deceased refused to accede to the demand of the applicant, then he used to threaten her to defame in the society by disclosing her illicit relationship. It is alleged that on account of threat given by the applicant, deceased committed suicide on 31.03.2021 by hanging.

3. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the allegations made against the applicant are false. If the applicant was harassing the deceased, then instead of putting her life to an end, the deceased could have made a complaint to the police. All witnesses are the family members of the deceased. Their statements have been recorded belatedly. In fact, one Malkhan was killed by the family members of the deceased. The applicant is related to Malkhan and since family members of the deceased were convicted for the murder of Malkhan, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. To buttress his contentions, counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramsingh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and Another, 2018 (4) Crimes 230 (M.P.).

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the applicant was pressurizing the deceased to leave her husband and marry the applicant and was also insisting that she should allow physical relationship with him and when she refused to accede to his illegal demands, then he also threatened to defame her in the society by disclosing her relationship. Thus, it is clear that the applicant by the aforesaid act, had abeted the deceased to commit suicide.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 has held as under:

    “16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar Case (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, 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. Where the accused had, 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, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

17. Thus, to constitute “instigation” a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward.” The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).”

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750 has held as under:

    “abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing – Without a positive act on part of

      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