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

2024 Supreme(MP) 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Dr. Shivani Nishad D/o Lt. Ramesh Nishad - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 27101 of 2023
Decided on : 07-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :MS. INDU PANDE - ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SHRI DILIP PARIHAR - ADVOCATE

Continuous harassment and threats can constitute instigation for abetment of suicide under IPC, necessitating careful examination of circumstances surrounding the act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 107 - Quashment of criminal proceedings - Applicants sought to quash FIR for abetment of suicide, arguing lack of ingredients for abetment - Court found sufficient material for prosecution based on suicide note and witness statements indicating continuous harassment and threats - The deceased's suicide was linked to the applicants' actions. (Paras 1-31)

(B) Abetment of Suicide - Definition and requirements - To establish abetment, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding in the act leading to suicide - Continuous harassment and threats can constitute instigation. (Paras 10-12)

(C) Legal Precedents - The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments to clarify the standards for establishing abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for mens rea and the nature of instigation. (Paras 10-30)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were accused of abetting the suicide of Chandra Shekhar @ Pawan Ahuja, who left a suicide note citing harassment and threats from the applicants. The deceased felt pressured due to multiple false cases against him.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicants' actions constituted sufficient grounds for prosecution under Section 306 IPC, as they created a situation leading to the deceased's suicide.

Issues: The main issues included whether the applicants' actions amounted to abetment of suicide and if the FIR was maintainable against them.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that continuous threats and harassment can amount to instigation, fulfilling the criteria for abetment under IPC.

Result: Application dismissed.

ORDER :

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against applicants in Crime No.39/2023 registered for offence under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Bamhani District Mandla.

2. The applicants have impleaded Chandra Shekhar Ahuja as respondent No.2 but Chandra Shekar @ Pawan Ahuja is the person, who has committed suicide. Therefore, instead of making the mother of the deceased as respondent No.2, applicants have impleaded the deceased as respondent No.2. How the applicants would serve the deceased and how the application against the deceased is maintainable has not been clarified by the applicants.

3. According to prosecution case, on 20.12.2022, an information was received that the deceased Chandra Shekhar @ Pawan Ahuja has committed suicide by hanging himself. Inquest enquiry was conducted and a suicide note left by the deceased was recovered from the left pocket of the pant of the deceased. The said suicide note was written in Hindi and was in red ink, which was signed by the deceased himself. The Post Mortem of the deceased was got done. On the basis of suicide note as well as on the basis of statements of witnesses, namely Smt. Shanti Ahuja, Anees Memon, Mahendra Ramtekkar, Govind Thakur, Anmol Verma, Amit Ahuja and Ankit Rai, the Police registered the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.

4. Challenging the FIR as well as criminal proceedings, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it would be clear that ingredients of Section of 107 of Cr.P.C. are not made out. In fact mother of the deceased herself was a notorious person and was creating all sorts of nuisance in the society. Multiple complaints were made by the residents of the society against mother of the deceased. To buttress her contention, counsel for applicants has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State of Tr. Dy. Supdt. Of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ganjula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750.

5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that FIR as well as statements of the witnesses clearly indicates that by threatening the deceased to falsely implicate in a false case of rape, the applicants had created a situation where the deceased was left with no other option but to put an end to his life. Taunting and humiliation at the hands of the applicants was not the singular event but it was a continuous torture. Even it is clear from the statements of the witnesses that the deceased was under the continuous threat given by applicant No.1 for falsely implicating him in a case of rape and eve teasing and when the threatening was to the extent of demeaning and destroying his self esteem, then it would amount to abetment of suicide. To buttress their contention, the counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of UDE Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in the AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4570.

6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

7. Before considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court would like to consider the law governing the field of abatement to commit suicide.

8. 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."

9. “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.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

    Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that

          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