Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10036
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Kumar Vani, J
Devideen Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.S. Parmar
For the Respondents: Rakesh Singh, Vineeta S. Patel
Conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide requires proof of clear mens rea and a positive, active act of instigation by the accused that leaves the victim with no other option but to take their own life; mere sensitivity or marital/land disputes are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 and 107 - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients to be established - Prosecution must show direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement - Mens rea is essential - Mere harassment or land dispute is insufficient in the absence of positive act leading the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. (Paras 10, 11, 19)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal against acquittal - Principles governing interference - Appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's view is perverse, illegal, or impossible - Benefit of doubt must go to the accused - Two views possible doctrine applies. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondents for abetment of suicide of his son. The prosecution alleged that a longstanding land dispute and harassment by the respondents led the deceased to commit suicide. The trial court acquitted the respondents finding no evidence of abetment.
Findings of Court:
The findings of the trial court were upheld. The evidence indicated the deceased was hypersensitive and there was no evidence of active instigation or physical cruelty to link the respondents to the death. The appellate court found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning.
Issues: Whether the ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 306/107 IPC were established and whether the trial court's acquittal warrants interference.
Ratio Decidendi: To constitute abetment, there must be a clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation which left the deceased with no other option. Mere discord or land disputes without direct incitement do not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court verdict and prosecution case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of prosecution and defense evidence presented during trial. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. summary of rival contentions regarding sufficiency of evidence for abetment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. definition and analysis of legal ingredients of abetment under section 107 ipc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. evaluation of prosecution witnesses, contradictions, and material evidence regarding the deceased's hypersensitivity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. reference to precedents establishing the high bar for proving abetment to suicide. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. final reasoning on acquittal and refusal to interfere with a non-perverse trial court judgment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2018, whereby the respondents No.2 to 6/accused have been acquitted of an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Arvind, son of Devidin Yadav, was missing from his field since 07.07.2018. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased made extensive search for him, but in vain. Subsequently, on 08.07.2018, the present appellant lodged a missing person report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Ajaygarh. On 10.07.2018, deceased Arvind was found hanging from a tree of Chhewala in Kurtala Forest, upon which the police registered a Marg Intimation No.36/2018 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and initiated inquiry. During the course of investigation, the statements of the family members of the deceased as well as the appellant were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In their statements, they deposed that there existed a dispute between the family of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 6 with regard to agricultural land and several cases in this regard were pending before the revenue authorities. It was further stated that on the date of disappearance i.e. 07.07.2018, a Panchayat had been convened for settlement of the said land dispute between the appellant’s family and respondents No.2 to 6, wherein respondents No.2 to 6 allegedly extended threats to the life of the deceased.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statements and the post-mortem report, the police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. under Crime No.271/2018, and after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajaygarh. The learned Magistrate, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No.82/2018. Charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was framed against respondents No.2 to 6, to which they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined witnesses namely Kamal Kishore (P.W.1), Kishorilal Dubey (P.W.2),Wakil Ahmed (P.W.3), Ashok Yadav (P.W.4), Deepak Yadav (P.W.5), Ashish Kumar Yadav (P.W.6). Dr. K.P. Rajput (P.W.7), Devidin Yadav (P.W.8), Smt. Bhuri Bai Yadav (P.W.9), Vinod Yadav (P.W.10), D.S. Parmar (P.W.11), Ashutosh Tiwari (P.W.12), Suresh Sen (P.W.13) and exhibited 24 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24) in support of the prosecution case. On the defence side, respondent No.2 himself entered into the witness box as D.W.1, and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7.
5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 6 from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that complainant Devidin Yadav (P.W.8) is the father of the deceased Arvind Yadav. It is further submitted that there exists ample evidence on record against the r
