IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 403 of 2000 BETWEEN:-

ANIL PARIHAR S/O SOMPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O A/1, DWARKAPURI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI Z.A.KHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA GANGARE - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND THE STATE OF M.P., THROUGH POLICE STATION -

MALHARGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI R.S.BAIS - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 419 of 2000 BETWEEN:-

1. RAJENDRA KAUSHAL S/O KISHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 317-BADEE-GWAL TOLI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUSHIL TIWARI S/O RAMNATH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 275 - GUMASHTA NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SHRICHAND S/O GAGANDAS MAMTANI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O - 108 - NEELKANTH COLONY INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI RK.TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS)

AND Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S MALHARGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI SHRI R.S.BAIS - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Both the Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the common judgment of conviction and sentence passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.428/92 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section

306 IPC, R.I for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default 6 months R.I.

In Criminal Appeal No.419/2000 it was stated that one of the appellants Sushil Tiwari son of Ramnath Tiwari has expired during pendency of the Appeal. The said fact was verified and by order dated 14/11/19, this Court directed for deleting the name of the appellant No.2 Sushil Tiwari son of Ramnath Tiwari from the array of appellants.

The appeal has been dismissed as abated so far appellant No.2 Sushil Tiwari is concerned.

Facts of the case adumbrated in a nutshell are that the appellants and other co-accused persons are the employees of the Citizens Co-operative Bank, while the deceased was the collection agent of the said Bank. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the deceased had defalcated money out of the amount of daily collection made by him, therefore, action was taken by the Bank against him and the appellant and other co-accused persons being the employees of the Bank were sent to persuade the deceased for depositing the amount defalcated Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD by him. It is further alleged that after sometime the deceased had committed suicide. It is also alleged that the deceased had left a letter/suicide note alleging therein that the appellants/accused persons were pressurizing him for returning the Bank money, therefore, he had committed suicide.

After investigation, a case was registered under Section 306 IPC and the appellants have been convicted under Section 306 and sentenced to undergo R.I for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were employees of the Bank and the deceased was working as a collection Agent for collecting the amount and since he defalcated the Bank money, therefore, they had gone to recover the said amount from him. The alleged act of the appellants cannot be said to be instigation or abetment within the definition of abetment under Section 107 or 306 of the IPC as also the necessary factors/ingredients to attract the aforesaid Sections are absent. There is no allegation against the appellants of instigating or abetting the deceased in any manner to commit suicide and it cannot be said that due to their acts, the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide and, therefore, their conviction and sentence is contrary to law. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/