Dinesh Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bench: Justice Pranay Verma

Dinesh Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2023

Law Point:

Necessary Ingredients of abetment to commits suicide missing offence under section 306, IPC against peritioner not made out

JUDGEMENT

Heard on I.A No. 4510/2023 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision.

For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

1. This Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.28/2022 whereby charge has been framed under Section 306 of the IPC against him.

2. The facts in short necessary for disposal of the present Revision are that Prashant Tiwari died due to hanging himself on 23.08.2021 at about 6.20 p.m.. He left behind a suicide note in which he stated that he had obtained certain loan from the petitioner who was pressurizing him for return of the same. Due to the pressure created upon him by the petitioner in demanding his money, he is committing suicide. Thereafter crime has been registered by Police Station Neelganga, District Ujjain for offence under Section 306 of the IPC. After investigation chargesheet has been filed and the same has been committed to the Court of Session after which the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner has been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loan was advanced to the deceased and as he did not repay the amount the petitioner insisted upon him for repayment of the same. For that purpose the petitioner exercised only that much pressure upon the deceased as was necessary for getting back the money. It cannot be said that the same amounted to any abetment or instigation on part of the petitioner for the deceased to commit suicide or that in view of acts of the petitioner the deceased had no other alternate but to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner even if taken to be true on their face value do not amount to any offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the petition by referring to the incriminating statement made by the witnesses and submitted that the impugned order framing charge is well merited and does not warrant any interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. The question in the present case is whether considering and accepting the entire material available on record as absolutely correct, prima facie case for framing charge under Section 306 of the IPC is made out. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC which is as under :-

306. Abetment of suicide- ”If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. It would also be apposite to refer to the definition of abetment as given under Section 107 of the IPC which is as under :-

107. Abetment of a thing- ”A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

8. A person is said to “Âœinstigate” another to act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word “Âœinstigate” means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.

9. In Amar Jeet Singh Anand V/s. State of M.P. 2016 (3) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 261 it has been held by this Court as under :-

8. In the present case, the petitioner accused has demanded the amount of loan advanced by him failing which he filed a criminal case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same cannot be equated with “instigate” or “Âœprovoking the deceased to commit suicide”. It may be possible that the deceased took such a step because she could not resist the pressure of repaying the loan and committed suicide.

9. In the case of Radheshyam vs. State of M.P., 2014(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 544 = 2014 (3) MPHT 103 it has been held as under :-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397-401- Order of framing charge under Section 306, Indian Penal Code No evidence of abetment to commit suicide- ”Money borrowed by the deceased- Demanding back of money was not an act of harassment -”Demand of loan amount is not an abetment under Section 107, Indian Penal Code Words uttered in heat of moment does not amount to abetment Held Order of framing charge is not sustainable and set aside.

10. Similarly in the case of Ramchandra vs State of M.P., 2009 (2) M.P.L.J. 147, the deceased committed suicide on account of playing dishonesty in a transaction of loan by the petitioner, it was held that the act as alleged against the petitioner does not amount to instigation nor constitutes aid in commission of the suicide by the deceased. Therefore, order framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code was set aside.

11. In an earlier case of similar nature rendered in Vivek Kumar Jain vs. State of M.P. , 2015 (2) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 76 =2015 (1) MPHT 75 wherein it has been held that the accused advanced certain loan to the deceased which the deceased could not repay. The accused pressurized the deceased to repay the money. The deceased could not repay and committed suicide. In the above circumstances, it was held that the proceedings initiated under Section 306, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, therefore, liable to be quashed.

12. In the case of Chater Bai vs. State of M.P., 2010 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 690 it has been held as under :

“Penal Code, S.306-” Abetment of suicide – From the statement made by the deceased in her dying declaration, no ingredients to make out offence under Section 306 quashed.”Â​

10. In the present case also the petitioner demanded amount of loan advanced by him and exercised pressure upon the deceased for the same. It can not be said that he instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased probably could not resist the pressure of repaying the loan and committed suicide. In view of the circumstances of the case and the legal aspects, in the opinion of this Court, ingredients of “Âœabetment” to commit “suicide” is missing, therefore, offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner/accused is not made out.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the trial Court framing charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby quashed.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us