IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

ON THE 3^rd OF AUGUST, 2022 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3507 of 2021 Between:-

1. GOVIND S/O PADAM SINGH ANJANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM DENGARKHEDA TEH. MAHIDPUR DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KULDEEP S/O BALARAM ANJANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM DENGARKHEDA, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 1.

THR. P.S. RAGHVI DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI, DY.GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

………...............…………………………………………………………………...

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

With consent heard finally.

This revision is preferred against the order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, district Ujjain in S.T.No.41/2020 by which charges under Sections 306 and 506-

II of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.

Signature Not Verified

2. The facts of the case in brief is that on 27.02.2020 the deceased Pankaj committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. The allegation against the petitioners is that Govind-petitioner no.1 had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and the petitioners used to threaten the deceased for making the video viral due to which the deceased committed suicide.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the entire case is accepted, no case is made out as mere harassment does not fall within the category of abetment. Petitioners are not the persons who abetted. In the entire charge sheet there is no document to prove that the petitioners ever harassed the deceased. The entire prosecution is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the petitioners never abetted, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even if the complete case of prosecution is accepted then the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are completely missing in the case. If the entire FIR is considered in toto even then the case of prosecution would collapse completely. It is further submitted that as per video statement of the deceased, ingredients of abetment and instigation are missing. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they intimidated the deceased. Hence, prays that the charges framed by the lower Court be set aside and the petitioners be discharged from the charges under Sections 306 and 506-II of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this revision petition.

5. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these Signature Not Verified factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self- protection or an escapism from intolerable self. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the I.P.C., however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing' thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

6. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306, IPC, the prosecution has to establish:

(i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused.

7. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would