Dineshchandra vs State of M. P. - 1988 Supreme(MP) 598

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : R.K. Sharma and Y.K. Pathak.
For the Respondent: M.M. Qureshi.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S. 306 and 107 – no ingredients of abetment prima – facie established – charge u/s. 306 cannot be framed.
        Short Note
       1. The deceased committed suicide in a room, the doors of which had been chained from inside, during the absence of his wife and children from the house in question. The deceased had left three suicide – notes one with the heading Bayan. The first sheet bear the title Bayan. Along with the suicide notes there was a letter addressed to his wife Madhulika. The relevant statement in the Bayan is as follows:
       ^^ – – – – – – – eSa ;g vkRegR;k vius firk] cgu ÁHkk oekZ rFkk cguksbZ Jh fnus'kpUæ oekZ ds dkj.k dj jgk gw¡A D;ksafd og eq>s vR;kf/kd ijs'kku djrs gSA mUgksaus esjk [kkuk&ihuk rd nqLHkkj dj j[kk gS og eq>s rjg&rjg dh /kefd;k¡ Hkh nssrs jgrs gSA
       2. First note contains his hope in the following words:
       ^^esjs ejus ds ckn esjs firk] cgu rFkk cguksbZ dks tks mfpr le>s naM nsaA
       3. The second note says that though he was intentionally committing suicide after taking liquor, yet all the letters were being written before taking liquor. The third note is that his father, sister and brother – in – law were responsible for the suicide and they be punished in accordance with law. The letter to his wife began thus:
       ^^eSa bl nqfu;k esa vius firk] cgu rFkk cguksbZ ds vR;kpkjksa ls ijs'kku gksdj vc bl nqfu;k ls cgqr nwj tk jgk gw¡A tgka eq>s dksbZ Hkh ijs'kku u dj ldsA**
       4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused – applicants had been dunning the deceased to vacate the house sold to Mt. Chandrabai.
       5. To this effect is the statement of Mt. Madhulika, Raviprakash and Rambabu. Raviprakash is a neighbour, while Rambabu is father – in – law of the deceased. One Paramkishore has also said that the deceased had spoken to him about the sale of the house and his harassment by his father and brother – in – law.
       6. It is worth mentioning that the deceased had referred to a civil litigation pending on the date of the suicide.
       7. The applicant's learned counsel has relied on Guman vs. State of M.P. Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1984, decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Shukla at the Gwalior Bench. In it the High Court held that though there was evidence about harassment and cruelty by the applicants and in particular applicant no. 2 Brindawan – husband of the suicide Smt. Premlata, which lead Premlata to commit suicide. The appellant could not be held guilty under section 306 IPC because there was no evidence of any of the ingredients of abetment, as defined in section 107 IPC.
       8. Now, in the case before me there is no evidence that the applicants instigated the deceased to commit suicide, or that there had been any conspiracy between the applicants for doing the thing. There is no evidence that there was any conspiracy between the applicants for the commission of the suicide. In fact, there is no evidence that the applicants intentionally aided, by an act or illegal omission, the act by which the deceased hanged himself to death.
       9. It is significant that none of the witnesses say that the deceased had told them that the harassment by the applicants was driving him towards suicide.
       10. In these circumstances, the suicide notes and the letter written by the deceased to his wife accusing present applicants of harassment and of his resolve to commit suicide as a result of the harassment cannot by themselves, furnish evidence or proof of the ingredients of abetment as defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
       11. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no ground for presuming that the applicants have committed an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Cr. A. No. 297 of 1984 relied on. Revision allowed.