1. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 r/w S.401 of Cr.P.C. is invoked for quashment of the charges framed against the petitioners by the trial Court under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and also for quashment of the interlocutory order dated 05.03.2015 rejecting the prayer for discharging made by the petitioners u/S. 227, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
3. The impugned FIR alleges the said offence against 07 accused including petitioners Shiva Parashar and Rahul Parashar.
4. During investigation, the statements of parents and wife of the deceased were recorded. A suicide note dated 20.08.2013 allegedly written by the deceased was recovered. This suicide note was prima-facie opined by the handwriting expert to be written by the deceased.
5. The suicide note though alleges specific allegations against co-accused namely Vipin Garg, Ashok Parashar, Vicky Shivhare and Gagan Garg. But in regard to both petitioners Shiva Parashar and Rahul Parashar, it is alleged that co-accused Ashok Parashar (father of both the petitioners herein) used to send his sons (petitioners) with other persons to abuse and intimidate the deceased with a view to pressure the deceased to repay the loan extended to him by the father of the petitioners and other co-accused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that on prima facie reading of material collected by the prosecution pursuant to the alleged impugned FIR the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide are not made out. It is further contended by the petitioner that mere making of demand for re-payment of loan does not constitute instigation, illegal omission or commission or aiding any person so as to constitute abetment as defined u/s. 107 of IPC.
7. In sum and substance learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the basic ingredients of abetment as defined u/s. 107 of IPC are not made out as there is no link much less alive or proximate link between suicide and alleged action of the petitioner in demanding re-payment of loan extended to the deceased.
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that sufficient material was available with the prosecution to not only lodge the FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused u/s. 306/34 of IPC but also to prosecute them in the trial court by filing of the charge sheet.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents- State and victim have placed reliance on various decisions of Apex Court and this Court in support of their rival submissions, namely the cases of Babbi @ Jitendra & Ors. v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (III) MPWN SN 8, Ramchandra S/o Jagannath Singh Kushwaha v. State of M.P. reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 147, Vivek Kumar Jain & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Anr. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 75, Radheshyam v. State of M.P. Thro' Police Station Singroli, Neemuch (M.P.) reported in 2014 Cr.L.R (MP) 416, Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Anr. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 673, Sathish Mehra v. State of N.C.T of Delhi and Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 506, Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2014 SC 1106, Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr. v. State of A.P. reported in AIR 2008 SC 527, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cr.) 367, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Cr.) 986 & Suresh alias Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) SCC (Cr.) 621.
10. To analyze this submission of learned counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant statutory provisions.
11. The offence u/s. 306 of IPC which for convenience and ready reference is reproduced herein below :-
'Section 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. Since abetment is the cause which is stated to have motivated the deceased to commit suicide, Section 107 of IPC defining abetment is reproduced herein below for convenience and ready reference :-
'Section 107 - Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing;
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 willful 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.'
13. Bare reading of Section 306 of IPC (supra) discloses the existence of two essential ingredients for establishing an offence of abetment to commit suicide. The first is factum of suicide by the deceased and the other is the act of another person abetting the said commission of suicide.
14. In the instant case, the factum of suicide is undisputed.
15. Now it remains to be seen whether the basic ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107 of IPC are made out or not?
16. Plain reading of Section 107 of IPC reflects that for establishing abetment three ingredients i.e instigation, conspiracy with other person to do or not to do an act or intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, the doing of thing, which is alleged to be abetted.
17. From the above, it is evident that instigation, conspiracy and intentionally aiding by omission or commission compelling other person to do an act which is unlawful whether that act is perpetuated or not then the person instigating conspiring and intentionally aiding can be held liable for abetment of the offence which is committed or likely to be committed by other person.
18. Testing the factual matrix on the law as discussed above, the sole allegation against the petitioners, who are not specifically named in the suicide note, is that they have assisted their father Ashok Parashar in abusing and intimidating the deceased with a view to pressure him to repay the loan. The suicide note has been opined by the Finger Print Expert to be written by the deceased. A bare perusal of the suicide note reveals the same details of specific allegations against four co-accused namely Vipin Garg, Ashok Parashar, Vicky Shivhare and Gagan Garg.
19. This Court has already held in M.Cr.Cs. No.11863/2014 and 2660/2014 that prima-facie the complicity of these four co-accused namely Vipin Garg, Ashok Parashar, Vicky Shivhare and Gagan Garg appears to exist and this Court thus has rejected their prayer for quashment of FIR lodged against them.
20. However, the distinguishable feature in the present case of both the petitioners is that the suicide note does not specifically implicate them. Non-implication of the petitioners in specific term by suicide note discloses the mind of the deceased,i.e.,grievance was against the aforesaid specifically named four co-accused. The reference of the names of the petitioners mentioned in the allegations made against their father seems to be a passing reference made more out of feeling of hatred towards Ashok Parashar, the father of the petitioners, than out of any real grievance of the deceased against these two petitioners.
21. The allegation of assisting the father in intimidating and abusing the deceased is too vague and thus renders the link between the cause and suicide weak enough to prevent the prosecution story against the petitioner to stand on its own legs independently even on a prima-facie basis.
22. The instance of close and proximate link between the act constituting abetment and suicide is essential for an offence u/S.306 of IPC to be made out even on a prima-facie basis. This link in the present case is so weak that allowing the i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
mpugned prosecution against the petitioners to continue would lead to injustice towards them as the prosecution having failed to make out the essential ingredients of S.306 of IPC, the conviction in such a matter is not possible. In this respect, the decision in the case of M. Mohan v. State : (2011) 3 SCC 626 is worthy of reference. 23. Thus, allowing any such proceedings against the petitioners to continue would be compelled the petitioners to face ordeal of a prolonged trial with no possibility of conviction. Thus, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice that the impugned prosecution deserves to be nipped in the bud. In view of the above, the instant criminal revision succeeds. 24. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dated 05.03.2015 is set aside. The petitioners hereby stand discharged of the offence u/S. 306 r/w 34 of IPC.