Madhya Pradesh High CourtAjay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2023Author:Deepak Kumar AgarwalBench:Deepak Kumar Agarwal1\n       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                   AT G WA L I O R\n                                       BEFORE\n       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL\n                         ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2023\n                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39566 of 2022\n\nBETWEEN:-\nAJAY SINGH S/O SHIVRAJ SINGH, AGED 50 YEARS,\nOCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE\nPEAKLON TAHSIL KURWAI DISTRICT VIDISHA\n(MADHYA PRADESH)\n                                                                       .....APPLICANT\n(BY SHRI ANAND VINOD BHARDWAJ - ADVOCATE)\n\nAND\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE\nSTATION   KURWAI DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA\nPRADESH)\n                                                                    .....RESPONDENT\n(SHRI B.M. SHRIVASTAVA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)\n       This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the\n\nfollowing:\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                        ORDERThis petition has been preferred by the petitioners underSection 482of Cr.P.C. For quashing FIR registered at Crime No.110/2022 at Police\n\nStation Kurwai for the offence underSection 306of IPC against the\n\npetitioner.2.     Brief facts of the case are that FIR was lodged on 10.04.2022 against\n\nthe present petitioner underSection 306of IPC alleging that deceased2Bhawarlal was found dead hanging on a tree in the field of Ajay Singh\n\nDangi and during the course of investigation, son of deceased stated that\n\nthe present petitioner and deceased were having land dispute since last two\n\nto three years and applicant has encroached upon ten biswa of land of the\n\ndeceased and on account of which the petitioner assaulted the deceased I\n\nthe morning due to which the deceased has committed suicide and as such\n\nthe FIR was lodged. It is alleged that the land dispute with the petitioner\n\nand some actions of the petitioner provoked and caused harassment to the\n\ndeceased and thereafter deceased committed suicide.3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prima facie on the\n\nfacts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence\n\nunderSection 306of the IPC is made out against the petitioner/accused as\n\nthere is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner in any manner\n\ninstigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Learned\n\ncounsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex\n\nCourt in the case ofNetai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal[(2005) 2 SCC\n\n659] and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.[(2002) 5 SCC\n\n371] and contended that the petitioner has not committed any willful act or\n\nomission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the\n\nact of suicide. There is no case that the petitioner has played any part or any\n\nrole in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the\n\ncommission of suicide by deceased.34.    Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submission so\n\nadvanced by the petitioner by submitting that at this stage no interference is\n\nwarranted.5.    Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.6.    On going through the copy of the charge-sheet filed by the petitioner,\n\nit is gathered that during investigation police has recorded the statements of\n\nKhumaan Ahirwar, Virendra Singh Dangi, Chandrabhan Singh Dangi,\n\nSachi S/o Shri Ashok, Dan Singh Sahu.7.Section 306of IPC reads as under:-Section 306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the\n         commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment\n         of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and\n         shall also be liable to fine."8.    The 'abetment' has been defined inSection 107of the IPC, which\n\nreads as under:-"Section 107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who -First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or\n              Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or\n              persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an\n              act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that\n              conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or\n              Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,\n              the doing of that thing.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an\n         act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that\n         act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to\n         aid the doing of that act."49.    AsSection 306of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide\n\npunishable, therefore, for making a person liable for an offence punishable\n\nunderSection 306IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such\n\nperson has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of\n\ndetermining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must\n\nfall in any of the 3 categories as enumerated underSection 107of the IPC\n\nand, therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated\n\nthe person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other\n\npersons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide or\n\nhe must intentionally act by any act or illegal omission, of the commission\n\nof suicide by the deceased.10.In Sanju aliasSanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of MP, (2002) 5 SCC\n\n371, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9 to 11 has observed as under:-"9.InMahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC\n        731, the appellant was charged for an offence underSection\n        306I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the\n        deceased, which reads as under:"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law\n              (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat\n              me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry\n              a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-\n              law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to\n              die by burning."10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' undersection 107I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the\n        appellant for an offence undersection 306is not sustainable\n        merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. ThisCourt further heldthat neither of the ingredients of abetment\n        are attracted on the statement of the deceased.511.InRamesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh(2001) 9 SCC\n         618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the\n         conviction for an offence underSection 306I.P.C. on the basis\n         of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in\n         which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel\n         between the deceased and her husband and on the day of\n         occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said\n         that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter\n         she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting\n         the accused this Court said:"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without\n             intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be\n             said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a\n             victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary\n             petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite\n             common to the society to which the victim belonged and\n             such petulance, discord and differences were not expected\n             to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given\n             society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court\n             should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused\n             charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found\n             guilty."11.   In case of Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, [2012 (1) JT\n\n478], it is observed that offence of abetment by instigation depends upon\n\nthe intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by\n\nthe person who has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation,\n\nconspiracy or intentional aid as provided undersection 107of the Code.\n\nHowever, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any\n\nintention cannot be termed as instigation.12.   The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State\n\n(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 while dealing\n\nwith the term "instigation" held as under :-6"16. ... instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite\n            or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of\n            'instigation', though it is not necessary that actual words\n            must be used to that effect or what constitutes 'instigation'\n            must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the\n            consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the\n            consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the\n            accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued\n            course of conduct, created such circumstances that the\n            deceased was left with no other option except to commit\n            suicide, in which case, an 'instigation' may have to be\n            inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion\n            without intending the consequences to actually follow,\n            cannot be said to be instigation.17. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who\n            instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage\n            the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging\n            forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word 'goad' is 'a\n            thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to\n            action or reaction' ... to keep irritating or annoying\n            somebody until he reacts...."13.InState of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73,\n\nthe Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-"This Court has cautioned that the Court should be\n            extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances\n            of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the\n            purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the\n            victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing\n            suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing\n            suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord\n            and differences in domestic life quite common to the\n            society to which the victim belonged and such petulance,\n            discord and differences were not expected to induce a\n            similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to\n            commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be\n            satisfied for basing a finding that that accused charged of\n            abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty".14.   The Hon'ble Apex Court inKishori Lal vs. State of M.P.reported in7(2007) 10 SCC 797 has held in para 6 as under:-"6.Section 107IPC defines abetment of a thing. The\n            offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence\n            provided inIPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when\n            (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages\n            with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the\n            doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or\n            illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are\n            essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word\n            "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or\n            bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment\n            may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as\n            provided in the three clauses ofSection 107.Section 109provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence\n            of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of\n            such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the\n            punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" inSection 109means the specific offence abetted. Therefore,\n            the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged\n            with the abetment is normally linked with the proved\n            offence."15.InGangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P.reported in (2010) I\n\nSCC 750, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:"abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person\n            or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing -\n            Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid\n            in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In\n            order to convict a person undersection 306IPC, there has\n            to be a clear mens rea to commit offence - It also requires\n            an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit\n            suicide seeing no option and this act must have been\n            intended to push deceased into such a position that he\n            commits suicide - Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court\n            that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to\n            ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life\n            quite common to society to which victim belonged and\n            such petulance, discord and differences were not expected\n            to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given\n            society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not8be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of\n             abetting suicide should be found guilty- Herein, deceased\n             was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,\n             discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of\n             offence underSection 306made out - Hence, appellant's\n             conviction, held unsustainable".16.InAmalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengalreported in (2010) 1\n\nSCC 707, the Supreme Court has held as under:-"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view\n             that before holding an accused guilty of an offence underSection 306IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the\n             facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the\n             evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the\n             cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the\n             victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.\n             It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged\n             abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect\n             acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on\n             the allegation of harassment without their being any\n             positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the\n             part of the accused which led or compelled the person to\n             commit suicide, conviction in terms ofSection 306IPC is\n             not sustainable.13. In order to bring a case within the purview ofSection 306IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the\n             commission of the said offence, the person who is said to\n             have abetted the commission of suicide must have played\n             an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act\n             to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of\n             abetment by the person charged with the said offence must\n             be proved and established by the prosecution before he\n             could be convicted underSection 306IPC.14. The expression 'abetment' has been defined underSection 107IPC which we have already extracted above.A\n             person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a\n             person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in\n             clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly\n             or thirdly ofSection 107IPC.Section 109IPC provides\n             that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in\n             consequence of abetment then the offender is to be9punished with the punishment provided for the original\n              offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however,\n              clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause\n              'thirdly' ofSection 107IPC only would be attracted.\n              According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out\n              as provided for underSection 107IPC.15. In view of the aforesaid situation and position, we\n              have examined the provision of clause thirdly which\n              provides that a person would be held to have abetted the\n              doing of a thing when he intentionally does or omits to do\n              anything in order to aid the commission of that thing. The\n              Act further gives an idea as to who would be intentionally\n              aiding by any act of doing of that thing when in\n              Explanation 2 it is provided as follows:"Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the\n              time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to\n              facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates\n              the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."16. Therefore, the issue that arises for our\n              consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses\n              namely firstly alongwith explanation 1 or more particularly\n              thirdly with Explanation 2 toSection 107is attracted in the\n              facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring\n              the present case within the purview ofSection 306IPC."17.    The Supreme Court in the case ofAmit Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chanderreported in\n\n(2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :''35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has\n              relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar\n              Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ((2009) 16 SCC\n              605 to contend that the offence underSection 306read withSection 107IPC is completely made out against the\n              accused. It is not the stage for us to consider or evaluate or\n              marshal the records for the purposes of determining whether\n              the offence under these provisions has been committed or\n              not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis\n              of record and documents annexed therewith.No doubt that\n              the word "instigate" used inSection 107IPC has been\n              explained by this Court inRamesh Kumar v. State of\n              Chhattisgarh((2001) 9 SCC 618) to say that where the\n              accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued\n              course of conduct, created such circumstances that the\n              deceased was left with no other option except to commit10suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other\n             words, instigation has to be gathered from the\n             circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct\n             evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the\n             suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances\n             created by the accused are such that a person feels totally\n             frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.''18.   Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated\n\nanother person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of\n\nlanguage, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to\n\nprovoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.19.   In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in the FIR\n\nand statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even then it cannot be\n\nsaid that petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. At the\n\nmost, there may be a dispute between the complainant/deceased and the\n\npetitioner herein over the land which was in dispute for over 2-3 years, but\n\nthat does not mean that petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit\n\nsuicide.20.   Thus, considering the totality of the facts & circumstances of the\n\ncase, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie there is no\n\nmaterial to show that petitioner in any manner have abetted the deceased to\n\ncommit suicide. Accordingly, FIR registered at Crime No.110/2022 at\n\nPolice Station Kurwai District Vidisha, (M.P) .for the offence underSection 306of IPC against the petitioner is quashed so far as it relates to\n\nthe petitioner and petitioner is discharged. This petition is accordingly11disposed and allowed.(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)\n                                JUDGE\nVishal\n         VISHAL\n         UPADHYAY\n         2023.03.04\n         12:50:02-08'00'