Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 102
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
Hemant Rochwani – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 2270/2024
Yogesh Gupta,Advocate General
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or encouragement leading to suicide is required; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Revision petition against framing of charges for abetment of suicide - The court found no prima facie evidence implicating the petitioner in instigating the deceased to commit suicide, quashing the charge framed by the trial court. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Abetment - Definition and requirements - The court reiterated that mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for abetment under Section 306 IPC; a clear mens rea and direct instigation are necessary for conviction. (Paras 8, 10, and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charges for abetment of suicide after the death of Vaishali, who left a message implicating the main accused, Ajay, for her distress. The petitioner, Hemant, was alleged to have harassed her but no direct evidence linked him to the act.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioner due to lack of evidence showing his involvement in the alleged offence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had any role in instigating the deceased to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding the deceased in committing suicide, which was absent in this case.
Result: The charge against the petitioner was quashed and he was discharged.
ORDER
This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar pronounced the following:
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C is filed assailing the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S.T. No. 75/2023 whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC.
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present revision petition is as under:
As per the case of prosecution, Bhagwan Das Kotwani reported to P.S. Kotwali , Mandsaur on 04.04.2023 that on 29.03.2023 around 1:30 p.m., his daughter Vaishali went to terrace of the house. After sometime, they heard a loud noise. Vaishali was found lying on the ground unconscious. She had sustained head injury. She was taken to Siddhi Vinayak Hosptial where doctor declared her dead. On 01.04.2023, his younger daughter opened the mobile phone of Vaishali. There was a message reflecting the reason for her death. It was stated in the message that Ajay had taken all the gold from her and lost entire money in betting. Ajay had taken some cash amount also on loan, which he is not returning. Ajay is harassing her. Therefore, she is committing suicide. Ajay and his father Hemant Rochwani had harassed Vaishali, therefore, she has committed suicide by jumping from the terrace. On such allegations, P.S. Mandsaur registered FIR at Crime No. 184/2023 for offence punishable u/S 306 and 34 of IPC against Ajay Rochwani and Hemant Rochwani. Ajay was arrested on 07.04.2024. Hemant was arrested on 14.03.2024. The mobile phone containing the message was seized. The mobile phone of Ajay was also seized. Relevant recoveries and seizures were made. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted. The matter was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur framed the charge for offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC against Hemant and Ajay Rochwani vide order dated 15.04.2024.
3. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.04.2024 is assailed in present petition on the following grounds:-
(i) There is no material available on record which implicates the petitioner/accused – Hemant in the alleged offence.
(ii) Initially, there was no allegation immediately after death of Vaishali. Later, on the basis of messages contained in the mobile phone of deceased, it was alleged that deceased has given cash and gold ornaments to accused – Ajay, who was not returning the same therefore, Vaishali had committed suicide by jumping off from the terrace of the house.
(iii) There is no evidence that the petitioner was in contact with the deceased or he has received any cash or ornaments from the deceased.
Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is no evidence that petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The alleged offence is not made out.
On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned order of framing of charge dated 15.04.2024 and the charge against the petitioner in S.T. No. 75/2023 be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter merely for the reason that he is father of the main accused – Ajay. There is no evidence, at all, to implicate the petitioner for abetment of suicide by Vaishali. The mobile communication or the chat message recovered during investigation does not reflect communication between the deceased and the petitioner – Hemant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal revision and submits that the material on record, prima-facie shows involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence alongwith the main accused Ajay.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case-diary and record.
7. Section 306 of IPC provides that punishment for abetment
