Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2016

CRR-2337-2014
(SANDEEP TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

23-06-2016

Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri C.S.Upadhyay,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Pandey, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.

The case is posted on admission; however, since the
respondent is represented and the case diary is available, the
criminal revision is admitted and heard finally be consent.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated
17-10-2014 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions
Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No.265/2014, whereby
a charge under
section 306
of the Indian Penal Code has been
framed against accused/petitioner Sandeep Tiwari.
Case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be
summarized as hereunder: Deceased Yogesh Soni was a
motor fitter. He had taken a loan in the sum of Rs.5600/- from
some person. Petitioner/accused Sandeep @ Chhuttan Tiwari
was middle man in the matter. On 13-03-2013, deceased
Yogesh Soni had gone to Tehsil office at Narsinghpur
whereon accused Chhuttan Tiwari and another person came
and claimed that deceased was given Rs.10,000/- at the rate
of 10% per month two months ago; therefore, the loan be
repayed immediately. They also threatened to beat him and
cause harm to his family. Thereon, deceased Yogesh gave the
registration card of his motor cycle to him. When the
deceased went to re-claim his card, they obtained his
signatures on two documents. They caught hold of his shirt-
collar and slapped him twice. In the result, the deceased
committed suicide by consuming poison on 03-04-2013. Laxmi
Soni, wife of the deceased, has stated under
section 161
that
in order to create pressure upon deceased Yogesh, accused
Chhuttan @ Sandeep Tiwari used to misbehave with the
deceased and humiliate him publicly and also by visiting his
home. Therefore, he was compelled to commit suicide.
Inviting attention of the Court to various judgments, it has
been argued on behalf of the petitioner/accused that even if
all the allegations made against him are taken at their face
value, his act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of
abetment of suicide.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other
hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground
that the deceased was given loan at usurious rates of interest
and he was repeatedly harassed and humiliated by the
accused for repayment of loan. Therefore, he was compelled
to commit suicide.

A perusal of record reveals that the deceased has left a
longish though incoherent suicide note. During investigation,
the police has also recorded the statements of the relatives
and acquaintances of the deceased. Before his death, he had
also written a letter to the Collector, District Narsinghpur,
stating the reasons for committing suicide. This may also be
treated as his dying declaration.

However, the question that arises for consideration is
whether the conduct of the deceased as brought forth in the
dying declaration and the statements of witnesses constitute
abetment of suicide?

Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

â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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.â
Term abetment has been defined under
section 107
of the
Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:

â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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.â
It has been held by the apex Court in the case of
Ramesh
Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh
, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:
âTo satisfy the requirement of instigation though it it 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 (Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court has observed in the case of
Gangula
Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
, 2010 Cr.L.J.
2110 (Supreme Court) that:

"20. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicideâ.....
(Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court further observed in the case of
Ramesh
Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:

âThe present one is not a case where the accused had by
his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
no option accept to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred.â
Likewise in the case of
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another
, (2009) 3 SCC 699, it
was observed that:

âThe circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and
oral evidence show that accused created circumstances
which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step
of putting an end to her life.â

18. On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
the case of
Aman Singh Vs. State of M.P.
, 2005 (2) JLJ 224
observed as hereunder:

More so, in this case the accused has not 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 an instigation may have been inferred.
It is pertinent to note that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of
Ved Prakash Vs. State of M.P.
, 1995 Cr.L.J.
893, with regard to suicide committed following attempts by
the accused to recover his loan held as hereunder:

âThe accused persons were charge-sheeted under
section
read with
section 34
of Indian Penal Code on the basis of
a suicide note left by the deceased in which he had blamed all
the five accused and held them responsible for his (suicidal)
death. However, it was found that none of the accused had
goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or
encouraged the deccased to commit suicide. They merely
goaded him to refund repay the amount of loan advanced by
them to him. They never intended that the deceased should
commit suicide. Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a
report against accused who had allegedly tortured him and
threatened him to kill. May be, as it sometimes happens, the
police officials might have declined to record the report. In
that case, he could have moved higher officials. But, instead
of taking this legal and legitimate action, the deceased
adopted an escapist course of committing suicide in order to
take revenge from his alleged tormentors. No case for
alleged commission of the was made out against the accused
persons. The prosecution of the accused would be nothing
but abuse of process of law. The charge-sheet filed against
accused Quashed under
section 482
of Criminal Procedure
Code.â
In the case at hand, it is prima facie established that the
deceased had taken a loan in the sum of Rs.5600/- from some
person, through the accused. The accused claimed that the
rate of interest was 10% per month. It is also established that
the accused used to harass and humiliate the deceased in
public and also by visiting his home for repayment of loan.

The accused had probably taken possession of the Discover
motorcycle of the deceased in order to force him to repay the
loan. However, a perusal of the dying declaration, written in
hand, reveals that petitioner had also taken loan from three
or four other persons as well. Accused Chhuttan was
misbehaving with the deceased for repayment of money.
Being unable to withstand persistent harassment, the
deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. However,
it is clear that the petitioner had no intention of instigating or
goading the deceased to commit suicide, for the simple
reason that with the suicide of the deceased, his chances of
recovering money practically vanished. Moreover, he could
not conceivably have foreseen that demand for repayment
accompanied by pressure, would lead the deceased to commit
suicide.

Though, the petitioner was harassing and beating the
deceased for the purpose of recovery of the amount and had
also taken possession of his Discover motorcycle, it cannot be
said that the petitioner by his persistent conduct had created
such a situation where the deceased was left with no option
but to commit suicide. He had several options before him; one
of them was to stand up to the petitioner; other one was to
have taken recourse to law against the petitioner. However,
instead of exercising any of aforesaid options, he took
extreme step of consuming poison. He probably had a flaw in
his mental make- up which made him more susceptible to
adversity in life, than a normal person. However, the
petitioner cannot be held to be legally liable for the same.
Thus, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against
petitioner Sandeep @ Chhuttan under
section 306
of the
Indian Penal Code. Consequently, he is entitled to be
discharged in respect of aforesaid offence. It is for the trial
Court to consider whether any other offence is made out in
the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the
material available on record.

In the result, this criminal revision succeeds in part.
Petitioner Sandeep @ Chhuttan is discharged in respect of
the offence punishable under
section 306
of the Indian Penal
Code. Learned trial Court is directed to consider the matter
with regard to charge afresh and after giving the accused
person an opportunity of being heard, frame such charge,
other than the one under
section 306
of the Indian Penal
Code, if any, and proceed with the matter accordingly.

(C V SIRPURKAR)
JUDGE