Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsingh Sawasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
1 MCRC-60666-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 24th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60666 of 2021
RAMSINGH SAWASIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.M. Bharadwaj - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
The applicants have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of
the proceedings of RCT No. 672 of 2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ashta, District Sehore; FIR No. 422 of 2021 registered at Police
Station Javar, District Sehore under Section 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and charge-sheet No. 1/2021 filed by respondent No.1.
2 . The case of the prosecution, as detailed in the memo of petition,
reveals that on 9.7.2021, the Police received an information as regards
commission of suicide by deceased namely Vipin. Upon investigation, it was
found that on 5.7.2021, applicant No. 1, who is father-in-law of the deceased
and applicant No. 2, who is brother-in-law of the deceased, threatened the
deceased to live separately and also manhandled him, as a result of which the
deceased committed suicide on 9.7.2021. Hence, the aforesaid offences were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
2 MCRC-60666-2021
registered against the applicants.
3. The counsel for the applicants contends that the entire proceedings
against the applicants are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. The
deceased was the husband of applicant No. 3. There was matrimonial dispute
between the deceased and applicant No. 3 and applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were
involved falsely. The present applicants had no role to play behind
commission of suicide by the deceased, yet the applicants have been
implicated on the basis of the suicide note alleged to have been left by the
deceased, which is contained in Annexure A-4. It is further contended that
the entire suicide note as well as statement of the witnesses reveal that there
was no instigation at the behest of the applicant, which could be said to be
persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. There has to be a direct and
positive act of incitement and in absence of the same, the present applicants
cannot be prosecuted. In the alleged suicide note, the deceased had stated
that he was threatened and manhandled by applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and so far
as applicant No. 3 is concerned, there is no allegation in the entire suicide
note. It is contended that the prosecution is required to establish the
proximity between such direct and positive act and the date of commission
of suicide but in the present case, there is complete failure on the part of the
prosecution to prove the said aspect of the matter. It is also contended that
applicant No. 3 has been unnecessarily made accused in this case despite the
fact that there is absolutely no iota of evidence against her and even the
suicide note does not contain any whisper against her. In view of aforesaid
arguments, it is prayed that the impugned FIR as well as criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
3 MCRC-60666-2021
proceedings instituted against the applicants be quashed and applicants be
discharged.
4. The counsels for the State and respondent No. 2 have opposed this
petition and submitted that on 5.7.2021, the deceased was threatened and
mercilessly beaten by applicant Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended that statement
of the father of the deceased reflects that at Police Station Vijay Nagar,
applicant No. 1 had slapped the deceased in the presence of applicant No. 3
(the wife of the deceased). It is further contended that a false and concocted
case was registered at the behest of applicant No. 3 under Section 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code against the deceased and the deceased was arrested
and was manhandled at Police Station Vijay Nagar. It is contended that on
account of aforesaid conduct of the applicants, the deceased was left with no
other option but to commit suicide. Therefore, no interference is required in
this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the order
dated 7.5.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.
27101 of 2023 (Dr. Shivani Nishad & another Vs. The State of M.P. &
another).
6. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
7. Heard submissions and perused the record.
8. A perusal of record reflects that the First Information Report was
lodged against the applicants on 21.8.2021 on account of commission of
suicide by the deceased on 9.7.2021. The suicide note left by the deceased
was recovered, in which it was stated by the deceased that he was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
4 MCRC-60666-2021
manhandled and threatened by applicant Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, he was
committing suicide. The said suicide note indicates that applicant Nos. 1 and
2 had manhandled and threatened the deceased. The suicide note further
reflects that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 slapped the deceased multiple times and
applicant No. 2 also manhandled and threatened the deceased. Therefore, the
important aspect, which requires consideration in the present case is as to
whether the act attributed to applicant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of the suicide
note, is sufficient enough to attract the provision of Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code or not? There are catena of judgments by the Apex Court which
deal with the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 and
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – (2001) 9 SCC 648 held in paragraphs 20
& 21 as under:-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement
of instigation though it is not necessary that actual
words must be used to that effect or what constitutes
instigation must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the
accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide in which case an instigation may have
been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actuallySignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:424665 MCRC-60666-2021
follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73
: 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that the
court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts
and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether
the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires
to the court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the society
to which the victim belonged and such petulance,
discord and differences were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to
commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not
be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be
found guilty.”
9. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami
Vs State of Maharashtra & others – (2021) 2 SCC 427, while dealing with all
the previous judgments held in paragraphs 50, 51 & 52 as under:-
“50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment
as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing.
The second segment defines it with reference to
engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other
persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal
omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the
third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally
aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
6 MCRC-60666-2021
These provisions have been construed specifically in
the context of Section 306 to which a reference is
necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for
assessing the contents of the FIR. These provisions
have been construed in the earlier judgments of this
Court in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B.
v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri)
107] , Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh
v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
56] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [Kishori Lal v. State
of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701]
(“Kishori Lal”) and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v.
State of Gujarat [Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v.
State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
62] . In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal
v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 896] , Mukundakam Sharma, J., speaking for a
two-Judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to
the earlier decisions, observed : (SCC p. 712, para 12)“12. … It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction
in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
51. The Court noted that before a person may be said to
have abetted the commission of suicide, they “must
have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
7 MCRC-60666-2021
suicide”. Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal
[Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 :
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] , “literally means to provoke,
incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do
anything”. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
[S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC
190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] , a two-Judge Bench of
this Court, speaking through Dalveer Bhandari, J.,
observed : (SCC p. 197, para 25)“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that
in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that
act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.”
52.Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan
Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682]
was specifically a case which arose in the context of a
petition under Section 482 CrPC where the High Court
had dismissed [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat,
2008 SCC OnLine Guj 568] the petition for quashing an
FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and
294(b) IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a
complaint of the spouse of the deceased who wasSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:424668 MCRC-60666-2021
working as a driver with the accused. The driver had
been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be
dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was
relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated
that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike
other drivers besides which he had other complaints
including the deduction of 15 days’ wages from his
salary. The suicide note named the appellant-accused.
In the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court,
delivered by V.S. Sirpurkar, J., the test laid down in
Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] was applied and the
Court held : (Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC p.
631, paras 10-11)
“10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing
in this suicide note or the FIR which would even
distantly be viewed as an offence much less under
Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR
or in the so-called suicide note which could be
suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such
matters there must be an allegation that the accused had
instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly,
had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy
and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act
or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
1 0 . The Apex Court in Arnav Goswami (supra) also referred the
decision of Apex Court in Uday Singh Vs. State of Haryana – (2019) 17 SCC
301 . The Apex Court in Ude Singh (supra) in paragraphs 16 and 16.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
9 MCRC-60666-2021
observed as under:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed
that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in
the context of an offence of abetment of suicide,
remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act
of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and
reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of
accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetmentSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
10 MCRC-60666-2021
of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his
acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a
situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other
option except to commit suicide, the case may fall
within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of
mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would
be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds
of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may
fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that
of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of
delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts, while taking
note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the
actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”
11. Recently, the Apex Court in Mohit Singhal and another Vs. State
of uttarakhand and others – (2024) 1 SCC 417 in Paragraph 10 observed as
under:-
“10. In the facts of the case, Secondly and Thirdly in
Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the
question is whether the appellants instigated the
deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause,
there must be instigation in some form on the part ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:4246611 MCRC-60666-2021
the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide.
Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must
be of such intensity that it is intended to push the
deceased to such a position under which he or she has
no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must
be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.”
12. In view of the aforesaid law enunciated by the Apex Court, in the
present case, if the suicide note is perused carefully, the same reflects that the
deceased was manhandled severely and was also threatened by applicant
Nos. 1 and 2. Apart from the suicide-note, as per statement of the father of
the deceased, he was slapped earlier at Police Station Vijay Nagar. Thus,
there was continued course of conduct, which constrained the deceased to
commit suicide. The said conduct of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, prima facie,
reflects direct and positive act of incitement, due to which the deceased was
left no other option but to commit suicide. The suicide note reveals that
active and positive act of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 created such circumstances,
which ultimately dragged the deceased to commit suicide. Undisputedly, the
deceased was manhandled on 5.7.2021 and he committed suicide on
9.7.2021. The said positive and direct act was proximate to the date of
occurrence of commission of suicide. The suicide note prima facie reveals
involvement of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and indicates instigation by them
while creating circumstances, which compelled the deceased to commit
suicide as a last resort. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that so far
as applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, no interference is warranted with
the proceedings which ensued in pursuance of registration of FIR No. 422 of
2021 registered at Police Station Javar, District Sehore under Section 306
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42466
12 MCRC-60666-2021
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. So far as applicant No. 3 is concerned, neither suicide note nor
statement of any of the witnesses indicate that there was any instigation or
incitement at the behest of applicant No. 3, except a part of the statement of
the father of the deceased wherein it was stated that deceased was slapped by
applicant No. 1 at Police Station Vijay Nagar in the presence of applicant
No. 3. The aforesaid statement does not make out any case against applicant
No. 3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that applicant No. 3
could not have been implicated in absence of any allegation of instigation or
incitement.
14. Accordingly, so far as applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, this
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
15. So far as applicant No. 3 is concerned, this petition is allowed. The
proceedings of RCT No. 672 of 2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ashta, District Sehore; FIR No. 422 of 2021 registered at Police
Station Javar, District Sehore under Section 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code; charge-sheet No. 1/2021 filed by respondent No.1 and ensued
proceedings stand quashed so far as they relate to applicant No. 3 only.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 8/29/2024
11:52:01 AM