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
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 :-
9. “Abetment” is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which reads as under :-
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
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707
Amit Kapur vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605
Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750
Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797
M. Mohan Vs. State of Tr. Dy. Supdt. Of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626
M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238
Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anothers reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 648
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371
State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73
UDE Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in the AIR 2019 SC 4570
Continuous harassment and threats can constitute instigation for abetment of suicide under IPC, necessitating careful examination of circumstances surrounding the act.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear instigation or intentional aid; mere suspicion or threats are insufficient.
For liability under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the suicide, which was absent in this case.
For abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear and proximate evidence of instigation or aid from the accused is essential; mere allegations in a civil dispute are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intent; mere allegations linked to civil disputes do not meet this threshold.
Abetment of suicide – Necessary ingredients of offence must be fulfilled by prosecution.
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or actions compelling the victim to take their life, not merely trivial domestic disputes.
The judgment established that for conviction under Section 306 I.P.C, there must be a clear mens rea and active instigation or intentional aid by the accused in the commission of suicide.
Abetment to suicide under IPC Sections 306 and 498A necessitates proof of instigation or influencing behavior, requiring thorough examination in trial; mere allegations do not suffice.
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be a direct and intentional act by the accused that leads to the suicide, which was not present in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.