Appeal
Appeal against the dismissal order of discharge
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.
Facts
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.
Final report (charge sheet) filed under section 306 IPC against appellant based on suicide note
4. That during inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C, a written suicide note and a mobile were found. The suicide-note mentioned about the deceased being harassed by the appellant – Mahendra Awase. 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.
Audio recordings of conversation
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.
Though discharge prayed by accused charges were framed by Trial court
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.”
Hon’ble High Court dismissed the revision preferred by appellant
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.
Analysis
Section 306 IPC explained
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
“ ……….. “
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“ ……….. “
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 Thirdly – intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Judgment analysis
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. …”
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].
Prosecution must prove the act of abetment by the person charged with section 306 IPC
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 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:-
“ paras: 41 and 45”
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.
Duty of realising outstanding loans for employer cannot be said to have instigated to commit suicide
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 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.
Party
Mahendra Awase (Appellant) vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent) – Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 11868 of 2023) – January 17, 2025 – 2025 INSC 76
