Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 11868 OF 2023)
MAHENDRA AWASE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Dated: 17th January, 2025.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order
dated 25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. By the said judgment, the High
Court declined the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the
offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(‘IPC’ for short) and maintained the charges as framed by the Trial
Court on 28.02.2023.
2
Brief Facts:
3. On 31.12.2022 a First Information Report was registered at PS
Maingaon on the information of Dharmendra. The informant stated
that his brother Bhagwan Singh was residing near his house along
with his son Ranjeet Chauhan; that on 11.10.2022 Ranjeet had left
home around 10 AM on his Motorcycle to go to the farm; that when
he did not return home till around 2 PM, he called him, but he got no
response; that his nephews - Shivam Chauhan and Kuldeep Chauhan
started searching for Ranjeet and while searching they went towards
Rangaon. There they found a Motorcycle parked on the side of the
road and when they searched nearby, around 6 PM in the evening,
they found Ranjeet hanging on a rope noose from a tree on the bank of
Borgaon drain about 100 mtrs. away from the Motorcycle. The
informant further stated that he informed Bhagwan Singh - father of
Ranjeet Singh.
4. That during inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C, a written suicidenote and a mobile were found. The suicide-note mentioned about the
deceased being harassed by the appellant - Mahendra Awase.
3
Statements of witnesses were recorded. A chargesheet came to be filed
on 21.01.2023. The chargesheet mentioned that the appellant had
committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
5. The suicide note reads as under:-
“I Ranjeet Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Chauhan
"illegible" taking my life on my own because life will
help me in taking my problems for which I have to take
this step.
I did loan for one Ritesh Malakar in which as witness
my cheques were attached for reason of which Awase,
person who give and take loan is harassing much for
this reason I have to take this step.
Sd/-
Ranjeet Singh
10.10.2022”
[Emphasis supplied]
Apart from the suicide note, it further transpires that statements of
witnesses were recorded to the effect that the deceased was staying
disturbed for the past few months and when asked he had mentioned
to them that Mahendra Awase, the appellant was harassing him with
respect to repayment of a loan which one Ritesh Malakar had taken
from Shree Saakh Cooperative Society Limited, Khargone.
4
6. It further transpires that the forensic laboratory had confirmed
certain audio recordings of the conversation between the deceased and
the appellant. Transcripts of the conversation were also produced.
7. The transcripts are extracted hereinbelow, as is available from
the Panchnama:-
“Speaker 1: Deceased Shumbam @ Ranjit son of
Bhagwan Singh Chauhan, caste Rajput, aged 26 years,
resident of Temla.
Speaker 2: Mahender Awasey, resident of Janki Nagar,
Khargone.
The data of mobile obtained from the Cyber Forensic
Unit, Khargone is perused and protected in aforesaid
Pen Drive (DGNET 24 GB, F22) in a Lab Case
80-22>2022-12-05. 16-22-36>Lab Case 80-22 Exbt. A>
files>recorded Audio in the file being AUD-20221010-
WA0007 which is prepared on 10.10.2022 at 07:26 AM
being of 151 KB before the aforementioned Panchas
and transcripted thereof as under:
Speaker- 1 Sir in the evening, in the evening, let
me go at least.
Speaker- 2 Let’s go. (*********) abusive
language. Now let me know whether
we are to go in the evening? Yes, we
are to go in the evening. Bhaiya since
when you are to go. When I made a
phone call only then you realized that
we are to go in the evening.
5
Speaker- 1 No, he has met me two times while on
the way. Now, I may go to his home
and only there I may convince him.
What else can I do I also told him that
I have nothing more. Dear I have only
30-35 thousand rupees. You may give
him and get freed.
Speaker- 2 What are you narrating me. From
where you may give money,
(*******) abusive language.
Speaker- 1 Yes, Sir.
Speaker- 2 Tell him I have no concern with it.
Speaker- 1 You have got it and now you may
return. That is all.
Speaker- 2 Listen, if you are not giving today then
you may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with
penalty in the office at 11:00 AM. If
you cannot, I am not in your favour. If
you don’t want to talk then I will tell
my authority.
Speaker- 1 No, No. Sir it is our duty.
Speaker- 2 You will pay money tomorrow
because you had committed it.
Speaker- 1 Yes, Sir.
Speaker- 2 Otherwise, I will come to the Pump.
You can run up to when you can.
[Emphasis supplied]
Specimen Transcript
Speaker-2-Name of suspect/accused Mahender son of
Ghanshyam Awasey, aged 27 years, resident of Janki
Nagar, Khargone.
6
Speaker-2 Let's go. (****) abusive language.
Now let me know whether we are to
go in the evening? Yes, we are to go
in the evening. Bhaiya since when
you are to go. When I made a phone
call only then you realized that we
are to go in the evening.
Speaker-2 What are you narrating me? From
where you may give money, (***)
abusive language.
Speaker-2 Tell him I have no concern with it.
Speaker-2 Listen, if you are not giving today
then you may deposit Rs. 11,800/-
with penalty in the office at 11:00
A.M. If you cannot, I am not in your
favour. If you don't want to talk then
I will tell my authority.
Speaker-2 You will pay money tomorrow
because you had committed it.
Speaker-2 Otherwise, I will come to the Pump.
You can run up to when you can.
Speaker-2 Thereafter, I will come home. The
neighbourers will hear the story. I
will put banners at your house. That’s
it.
Speaker-2 You have signed the file indicating
that this person has obtained the loan
and now is not traceable. You may
come and meet me and see that some
people have written. If I may get it
written which will not be right. The
modesty of your parents will also
hurt.
7
Speaker-2 Then, you may make payment of
money. (****) abusive language.
You may return my money. That’s
all. You go and arrange.
[Emphasis supplied]
8. The appellant prayed for discharge from the proceedings.
However, based on the material available, on 28.02.2023, the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone framed the following charges.
“On 11.10.2022 between about 10:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs
and before that, you mentally tortured the deceased
Ranjit Chauhan at Rangaon Road, on the banks of
Borgaon drain, Temla, under District Khargone, Police
Station Maingaon, and forced him to commit suicide
due to which he committed suicide by hanging himself.
Your said act is punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code.”
9. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, the appellant
approached the High Court by filing a revision but the same has been
dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant is before
us.
10. We have heard Shri Pardeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellant and Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the records of the case.
8
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads 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.”
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of
a thing, whoFirst. - 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.”
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who
Firstly - 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
9
Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995
Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go
and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court
held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between
quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to
follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words
would be carried out in all events. …"
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another,
(2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
10
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010)
1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. 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.
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the
act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be
proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
11
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was
held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar
has examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“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
actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence and material available on
record wherefrom an inference of the appellantaccused having abetted commission of suicide by
Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily
be drawn.”
12
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by this Court are 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/she committed
suicide.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of
instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course
of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also
held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we
are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under
Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the
prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the
suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to
13
repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh
Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty
of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said
to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the
transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even
taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to
instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that
the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased
with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the
armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit
heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option
but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind.
Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months
and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly
reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC
[Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed
more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section
306.
21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the
appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306.
Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case
No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge,
Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said
proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142
of 2023 is set aside.
………........................J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
……….........................J.
[K. V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi;
17th January, 2025.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment